.^^^NRV  OF  PRlHCej^ 


JUL 


y^, 


^EOi 


OG/C.U  SEW 


,■# 


i\ 


CANDID  REASONS 


FOR 


RENOUNCING  THE  PRINCIPLES 


OF 


ANTIPiEDOBAPTISM. 

ALSO, 

AN  APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING  A  SHORT  METHOD  WITH  THE  BAPTISTS. 


BY  PETER  EDWARDS, 

Several  years  Pastor  of  a  Baptist  Church,  at  Portsea,  Hants, 

I 


THIRD  AMERICAN  EDITIOK. 


ALBANY : 

PRINTED  FOR  WHITING,  BACKUS  &  WHITING. 


7 


1804. 


TO   THE 

CHURCH  AND  CONGREGATION 

jMeet'ing  /iV  iriii7'E\y  ROTF^  rourr^Ej^  /{jkts. 
DEARLY  BELOVED, 

AFTER  officiatino-aiTions:  voii,  as  Pastor  and  Min- 
ister,  between  ten  and  eleven  years,  it  seemed  natural  to 
address  you  in  a  publication  intended  to  account  for  that 
change  of  seiiLinient  in  me,  w hicli  has  proved  the  occasion 
of  oiu'  sepai'ation. 

Two  eminent  writers,  Mr.  Booth  and  Dr.  Williams, 
ha\e  both  contributed  to  tliis  :  The  latter  has  my  ac- 
knowledgments ;  the  former  my  animad^'crsions.  As 
Mr.  B.  had  no  design  to  discover  the  fallacy  of  the  Bap- 
tist scheme,  I  thought  it  proper  to  show  in  what  way  his 
book  has  operated,  and  is  likely  still  to  operate,  contrary  to 
the  design  of  the  author. 

I  ha^^e  presented  the  whole  scheme  to  the  reader  in  the 
same  point  of  view  in  ^vhich  it  Vviis  exhibited  to  my  ov.n 
mhid.  In  composing  it  I  have  endeavoured  to  avoid  e-\'ery 
thing  foreign  and  bitter ;  that,  as  the  truth  has  been  my 
object,  I  ^^•ished  to  say  nothing  that  should  divert  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader  from  it.  \\'ishing  that  you  and  I  may 
grow  in  grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  I  remain, 
in  the  same  esteem  and  lo^e, 

Yours,  in  our  common  Lord, 

PETER  EDWARDS. 

PoRTSEA,  Jan.  12,  1795. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

I.  An  Introduction,  wherein  the  Question  is  fairly  stated,  5 

II.  The  Arguments  of  the  Baptists  against  Infant  Baptism  : 

1 .  From  the  Want  of  express  Precept,  8cc.  9 

2.  From  their  Want  of  Faith  and  Repentance,  16 
ill.  Arguments  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism  : 

1.  From  the  Institution  of  their  Membership,  24 

2.  From  the  Continuance  of  that  Institution,  28 
IV.  A  Scheme  of  the  whole  Controversy,  51 
y.  Remarks  on  that  Scheme  ;  wherein  the  only  Argument 

of  Mr.  Booth   against  the  Continuance  of  Infant 
Membership  is  refuted,  55 

yi.  An  Appendix,  in  whicli  the  whole  system  of  the  Bap- 
tists is  overthrown  by  Consequences,  62 

VII.  The  Mode  of  Baptism  ;    wherein  the  Force  of  the 

Term,  the  Circumstances,  and  Allusions,  are  con- 
sidered, '  8  3 

VIII.  The  Practical  Use  of  Paedobaptism,  9S 


IvIOTE. — In  the  English  Edition  there  were  a  number  of  Greek 
words,  which,  for  want  of  a  Greek  Type,  are  now  printed  in 

Italics. 
|C7*  Wherever  i.  e.  occur  in  this  work,  they  mean,  that  is^  and  e.  ^, 
for  cxamhk. 


THE  INTRODUCTION  : 

CONTAINING  A  FAIR  STATEMENT  OF  THE  INQUIRY. 


7'HESIS  1. 

Ike  only  thing  which,  in  any  dispute,  should  cnp;apc 
our  attention,  is  this  :  ''What  is  truth?"  And  he  ^vho 
wishes  to  find  it,  will  endeavour  to  adopt  that  plan  which 
will  bring  him  soonest  to  that  he  seeks.  There  are  two 
thiiigs,  in  all  matters  of  controversy,  Vvhich  greatly  facili- 
tates our  search  :  First,  that  we  set  aside  all  tl>o.se  things 
about  which  we  are  agreed,  and  fix  our  attention  to  that 
only  on  which  a  dilTerence  of  opinion  may  fail ;  an.d,  sec- 
ondly, that  this  difterence  be  stated  in  a  manner  the  most 
plain  and  simple.  To  either  of  Vvhich,  no  person  who 
seeks  the  truth  can  form  the  least  objection. 

"THESIS  II, 

As  this  inquiiy  lies  betvreen  those  v/ho  pass  imder  the 
denomination  of  Pxdobaptists  and  Antipasdobaptists,  it 
will  be  proper,  in  order  to  ascertain  wherein  they  diiFer 
on  the  subject  of  baptism,  to  give  the  sentiments  of  each. 
Antip^edobaptists  consider  those  persons  as  meet  subjects 
of  baptism,  ^\  ho  are  supposed  to  possess  frdth  in  Christ, 
and  those  only.  Pccdobaptists  agree  witji  them  in  this, 
that  believers  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ;  but  den}' 
that  such  only  ai^e  proper  subjects.  They  think,  that/  to- 
gether V.  ith  such  believing  adults  who  have  not  yet  been 
baptized,  their  infants  have  a  riglit  to  baptism  as  well  as 
their  parents. 

I  have  lately  con^^ersed  ^\ ith  many  Baptists,  who  h.new 
so  little  of  the  sentiment  of  their  brethren,  that  they  su]:)- 
posed  adult  baptism  was  entirely  rejected  ])y  Pccdobaptists ; 
and  when  I  endeavoured,  from  their  confessions  of  faith, 
<S:c.  to  convince  my  Baplist  friends  that  they  held  adult 
baptism  as  well  as  themselves,  some  believed  and  marvel- 
led, but  others  remairicd  in  doubt. 

THESIS  III. 

From  this  view  of  the  sentiments  of  each,  it  appears 
that  both  parties  are  agreed  on  the  article  of  adult  baptism, 
v\  hich  must  therefore  be  set  aside  as  a  matter  entirely  out  of 
dispute  ;  for  it  can.  answer  no  good  purpose  for  one  to 
prove  wliat  the  other  vrill  not  deny.  Now  seeing  they 
are  so  far  of  one  mind  (I  speak  of  the  subject,  not  of  the 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

mode)  the  cliiTercncc  between  them  concerns  infants  only  ; 
and  the  simple  question  which  remains  to  be  decided,*^  is 
this,  Are  infants  fit  subjects  of  baptism,  or  are  they  not  ? 
On  this  question  the  whole  turns.  The  Pccdobaptists  af- 
firm, and  Antipasdobaptists  denv. 

THESIS  IF. 

The  simple  question  being  as  I  ha^'e  now  stated  it,  Are 
infants  fit  subjects  of  baptism,  or  are  they  not  ?  It  will 
clearly  follo^v,  that  all  those  places  "\\  hich  relate  to  belie\'- 
ers'  baptism,  can  prove  nothing  en  the  side  of  Baptists  : 
and  the  reason  is,  they  have  no  relation  to  the  question. 
To  illustrate  this,  I  ask  a  Baptist :  Is  an  infant  a  fit  sub- 
ject of  Baptism  ?  No,  says  he.  Wherefore  ?  Because  the 
Scriptures  say,  Repent  and  be  baptized. — If  thou  believest, 
thou  mayest — I  interpose,  and  say.  Your  answer  is  not  in 
point.  I  asked,  Is  an  infant  a  fit  subject  of  baptism  ? 
You  ans^vcr  by  telling  me  that  a  peniterit  adult  is  such. 
But  as  I  asked  no  question  concerning  an  adult,  the  an- 
swer is  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose.  If  I  should  ask  wheth- 
er an  infant  were  a  creature  of  a  rational  kind,  ^voiild  it 
be  a  good  answer,  if  any  person  should  say  that  adults  ^ytve 
of  that  description  ?  No  answer  can  be  good,  if  it  do  not 
directly  relate  to  the  question  proposed  ;  for  then,  prop- 
erly speaking,  it  is  no  answer  to  the  question.  And  there- 
fore, if  I  ask  wliether  an  infant  is  a  proper  subject  of  bap- 
tism, and  another  should  bring  twenty  places  to  pro^  e  the 
propriety  of  baptizing  adults  ;  as  all  this  would  be  noth- 
ing to  the  question,  so  nothing  would  be  proved  thereby, 
either  for  or  against. 

We  may  from  hence  estimate  the  neat  strength  of  each 
party,  as  they  respect  one  another.  The  Psedobaptist  has 
just  so  much  strength  against  a  Baptist,  as  his  arguments 
w^eigh  on  the  affirmative,  and  no  more ;  and  the  Baptist 
)ias  no  more  strength  against  him,  but  as  his  argmnents 
iveigh  on  the  negative.  Whatever  arguments  a  Baptist 
may  bring  to  evince  infant  baptism  to  be  wrong,  ^vhether 
they  be  many  or  few,  good  or  bad,  it  is  all  his  strength ; 
he  has  not  a  grain  more  on  liis  side.  For  as  it  lies  on 
neither  of  these  to  prove  adult  baptism  (it  being  a  thing 
professed  and  used  by  both,  and  is  therefore  no  subject  of 
dispute,)  those  arguments  that  pro^e  it  can  have  no  place 
here.  This  being  carefully  observed,  we  shall  see  ^vhich 
of  tliese  has  the  fairest  pretension  to  truth. 


INTRODUCTION.  r 

THESIS  V. 

Whatever  may,  in  reality,  be  tlie  force  of  argument  on 
either  side,  respecthig  this  question,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
l^ut  that  side  is  the  true  one,  on  \\hich  the  arguments  are 
found  to  preponderate.  If  the  arguments  for  infant  bap- 
tism aie  stronger  tlian  any  that  can  be  produced  against  it, 
then  infant  baptism  must  be  right ;  and  so  the  easy  and 
sure  way  of  coming  to  a  decision  is,  to  collect  the  argu- 
ments on  both  sides,  try  their  validity,  and  compare  thcni 
together.  This,  in  the  fear  of  God,  I  shall  endeavour  to 
do.  First,  I  Vv  ill  set  down  the  arguments  against  infant 
baptism,  and  examine  them  as  I  proceed ;  and  then  those 
which  make  for  it :  and  after  that  I  will  compare  them  to- 
gether in  opposite  columns.  By  this  process,  which  is  the 
fairest  I  am*  acquainted  vvith,  ^ve  shall  see  ^\'hether  Baptists 
or  Pcedobaptists  liave  the  truth  on  their  side. 

The  whole  import  of  these  propositions  is — That  botli 
parties  agree  about  adult  baptism — That  when  a  Baptist 
has  proved  adult  baptism,  he  has  proved  nothing  against  a 
Pscdobaptist — That  the  only  question  being  this,  Are  in- 
fants fit  subjects  of  baptism,  or  are  they  not  ?  It  is  evident 
that  those  passages  of  Scripture,  which  prove  adult  bap- 
tism, v;ili  not  ans^\'erthis  question — And,  that  arguments 
for  and  against  being  compared,  that  side  is  the  true  one^ 
on  ^vhich  they  preponderate. 

If  any  thing  can  make  this  m^atter  plainer,'  and  I  wish 
it  to  •be  made  plain,  perhaps  the  introduction  of  a  short 
flmiiliar  dialogue  may  do  it.  We  w^ill  therefore  suppose  a 
con\'ersation  betv.een  a  Baptist  and  a  Pa^dobaptist ;  the 
Baptist  speaking  as  follovv'S  : 

Bap,  I  wonder  very  much  you  should  not  agree  with 
m.e  in  sentiment,  respecting  the  subject  of  baptism. 

Pcsdo,  There  is  nothing  in  this  to  wonder  at,  since  we 
all  see  but  in  part ;  it  is  our  happiness  to  believe  to  the  sav- 
ing of  the  soul. 

Bap,  That  which  makes  me  wonder  is  this,  that  the 
sentiment  I  hold  is  so  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture. 

Pcudo,  What  sentiment  is  tliat  you  hold,  and  which  you 
say  is  so  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture  ? 

Bap.  I  hold  v/hat  is  commonly  called  believers'  bap- 
tism; or,  that  it  is  right  to  baptize  a  person  professing 
faith  in  Clirist. 


9  INTRODUCTION. 

Pcvdo,  If  tliat  be  your  sentiment,  I  gnint  it  is  clearly  r^' 
vealed ;  but  in  this  we  are  agreed,  it  is  my  sentiment  as 
well  as  yours. 

Bap.  But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  my  sentiment.  I 
meant  to  liave  said,  that  it  is  wrong  to  baptize  infants. 

Pcech.  Then  }'ou  and  I  differ  only  about  infants. 
Bap.  If  you  grant  adult  baptism  to  be  right,  it  is  only 
about  infants  we  diiTer. 

P^edo.  I  do  grant  it.  And  then  do  you  mean  to  say, 
that  it  is  clearly  revealed  in  Scripture  that  it  is  wrong  to 
baptize  infants. 

Bap.  I  do  mean  to  say  that. 

Pcedo.  How  do  you  prove  it? 

Bap.  I  prove  it  by  Acts  viii.  37.  If  thou  believest  ^vith 
all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest. 

Pcedo.  You  have  indeed  proved  believers'  baptism  to 
be  right ;  but  I  asked  you,  how  }-ou  proved  infant  bap- 
tism to  1  >e  wrong  ? 

Bap,  Must  not  infant  baptism  be  WTong,  if  believers' 
baptism  be  right  ? 

Pado.  No  more  than  believers'  baptism  must  be  wrong, 
if  infant  baptism  be  right.  Would  you  think  I  had  prov- 
ed that  infants  would  be  lost,  by  proving  that  believing 
Jidults  w  ould  be  saved  ? 

Bap.  Certainly  I  should  not. 

P^do.  Why? 

Bap.  Because  the  question  w^ould  be  only  about  inflmts ; 
and  vre  cannot  infer  the  loss  of  an  infant  from  the  salva- 
tion of  a  believing  adult. 

Picdo.  Very  true.  Then  that  which  proves  infant  bap- 
tism wrong,  must  not  be  the  same  that  proves  adult  bap- 
tism to  be  right. 

Bap.  I  grant  it,  and  think  there  is  sufficient  proof  against 
it  beside. 

Pcedo.  This  is  the  very  point.  You  produce  your  proof 
against  it,  and  I  will  produce  mine  for  it.  If  your  proof 
be  found  stronger  against,  than  mine  for,  you  have  truth 
on  your  side  ;   if  not,  the  truth  is  on  mine. 

Bap,  Nothing  can  be  more  fair ;  and  I  am  willing  to 
put  it  to  the  test. 


CHAPTER  I. 


tins  CHAPTER  WILL  CONTAIN  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT 
BAPTISM.-.OF  THESE,  THERE  ARE  TWO  ONLY  ;  FOR  W^ATEV- 
ER  MAY  BE  URGED,  WILL  FALL  UNDER  ONE  OR  OTHER  OF 
THESE. 


ARGUMENT  I. 

I  A  Person  ivho  has  a  right  to  a  positive  institute  must  be  exhresslu  men-^ 
ttonedas  haroing  that  right  ;  but  infants  are  not  so  mentionecL  ther,- 
Jore  they  have  not  tliat  right. 

As  the  whole  force  of  this  argument  turns  upon  the  words  exiDress 
and  exphcit,  which   Baptist   writers   commonly   use,   the  reader,  in 
order  to  iorm  a  just  opinion  upon  the  subject,  should  clearly  under- 
stand their  import.     And  since  I  shall  often  have  occasion  to  use  them, 
the  reader  will   meet  with  an  explanation  of  the  term  '  explicit'  in 
another  place.     At  present  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  both  these 
terms  stand  opposed   to  inference,  anaiony   and    implication.     And 
when  the  Baptists  say  there  is  no  express  command  for  infant  baptism, 
they  mean  there  is  no  command  '  m  so  many  words,'  as  '  thou  shalt 
baptize   infants,    or  somethin-   equivalent.     This  being  premised,  I 
say  ofthe   argument,  it  is  assuming'—contracted— false.     It  is  very 
assuming,  because  it  seems  to  dictate  to  the  ever-blt^sed  God  in  what 
manner  he  ought  to  speak  to  his  creatures.     Since  it  is  no  where  con- 
tained in  his  word,  and  he  knows  best  how  to  communicate  his  mind 
to  men,  it  litt.e  becomes  such  creatures  as  we  are,  to  lay  down  rules 
by  whicn  he  sha    proceed.     To  such  who  thus  assume,  it  may  prop- 
erly  be  said,  "  Who  hath  known  tlie  mind  of  the  Lord  .?  or  who  hath 
been  his  counsellor  ?"  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are 
all  things  :    1  o  wJiom  be  glory  for  ever.     Amen. 
_  It  IS  very  contracted,  because  it  supposes  we  cannct  understand  what 
Ood  says,  but  when  he  speaks  to  us  in  one  particular  way.     Certain 
It  IS  chat  the  most  important  things  are  set  forth  in  Scripture,  in  many 
.    different  ways  ;  and  we  may  come  at  the  truth  bv  an  indirect,  as  cer- 
tainly as  by  a  direct  expression  :  ..  g.  When  {he  Apostle  says  he 
was  caught  up  into  the  third  heaven,  I  certainlv  know  there  is  a  first 

^ut  ^  l^?     '     '''''^^'  ^  ""  '"^''''''  ^^^^  '^^  expressly  of  any  such  thin^ . 
!   But  what  IS  most  material,  I  affirm  that  * 

B 


10  ARGUMEjYTS  JGJIJVST 

It  15  very  false  :  Because  (to  wave  other  instances,  and  fix  on  on« 
only)  a  subject  is  admitted  to  a  positive  institute,  and  that  admission 
is  according  to  truth,  and  so  held  and  practised  by  all,  who  use  Chris- 
tian rites  ;  when  yet  there  is  no  express  law  or  example  to  support  it, 
in  all  the  word  of  God.  It  is  the  case  of  women  to  which  I  allude, 
and  their  admission  to  the  Lord's  table. 

I  acknowledge  it  is  right  to  admit  them,  and  so  do  all,  v/Iio  use  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  but  as  to  express  law,  or  example,  there  is  no  such 
thing  in  Scripture.  If  it  be  said,  that  women  are  fxt  subjects  of  bap- 
tism— that  they  are  capable  of  religious  advantages — that  they  ha.ve 
a  right  to  church-membership,  and  therefore  a  right  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  I  grant  it — And  then  the  argument  is  false  ;  for  if  women 
are  admitted  because  they  are  fit  subjects  of  baptism,  he.  they  are  ad- 
mitted by  something,  which  is  not  express  lav/  or  example.  But  the 
argument  I  am  opposing  says,  "  A  person  who  has  a  right  to  posi- 
tive institutes,  must  be  expressly  mentioned  as  having  thsit  right." 
Now,  if  women  are  not  so  mentioned  with  respect  to  the  supper,  the 
practice  of  admitting  them  is  wrong,  or  this  argument  is  false.  This 
argument  indeed  is  false  ;  the  practice  is  by  no  means  wrong.  And 
to  shovv^  the  fallacy  of  the  Baptist  system  at  large,  I  will  undertake, 
in  the  sequel,  to  prove  that,  upon  the  principles  and  reasonings  of  the 
Baptists,  a  woman,  however  c|ualified,  can  have  no  riglit  v/hatever  to 
the  Lord's  table. 

There  is  no  express  command  or  example  for  infant  baptism  !  This 
being  a  favorite  argument  with  Baptists,  and  the  case  of  women,  in 
this  respect,  being  the  same  as  that  of  infants,  they  will  not  suffer  an 
instance,  so  fatal  to  their  system,  to  pass  by,  without  making  an  ef- 
fort to  overturn  it.  They  know  very  well,  I  mean  the  thinking  part, 
especially  those  who  write,  that  they  cannot  maintain  this  argument 
against  infants,  without  producing  and  explicit  warrant  for  female  com- 
munion. They  therefore  afPinii,  that  the  Scriptures  afford  such  a  war- 
rant, and  that  it  is  found  in  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  "  Let  a  man  \_A}ithropos'\ 
examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,"  &c.  It  is  certain- 
ly here,  or  no  where.  I  have  known  many  who  took  this  for  an  ex- 
press word  fpr  women.  I  did  so  myself  for  some  years,  till  Mr. 
Booth's  attempt  to  prove  it  convinced  me  of  the  contrary. 

An  express  word,  in  the  present  case,  must  be  one  that  specifies  the 
sex;  as  Acts  viii.  12,  "  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women.'* 
[Andres  kaigunaikes.^  But  I  ask,  is  Anthropos  an  express  word  for  a 
woman  ?  Mr.  Booth  affirms  it  is.  Take  it  in  his  own  words,  vol.  ii. 
page  73.  "In  regard  to  the  supposed  want  of  an  explicit  warrant  for 
admitting  women  to  the  holy  table,  we  reply  by  demanding.  Does 
not  Paul,  when  he  says,  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him 
eat,  enjoin  a  reception  of  the  sacred  supper  ?  Does  not  the  term  An- 
throjios^  there  used,  often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species,  without  re- 
gard to  sex  ?  Have  we  not  the  authority  of  lexicographers,  and, 
which  is  incomparably  more,  the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for  un- 
derstanding it  thus  in  that  passage  ?  V/hen  the  sexes  are  distinguish- 
ed and  opposed,  the  v/ord  for  a  man  is  not  Anthropos^  but  Aneer'* 
This  is  all  about  the  vv^ord,  except  a  quotation,  which  is  not  material. 

The  r«i(4er  is  desired  to  observe,  that,  as  Mr.  B.  has  undertaken  to 


LyPA.V T  BAPTISM.  \  \ 

f)rocince  an  explicit  warrant  for  female  communion,  he  can  derive  no 
help  from  analogy,  or  inference,  or  any  thing  of  that  kind.  The  v/ords 
he  brings  for  proof  must  contain  their  own  unequivocal  evidence,  in- 
dependent of  every  other  consideration.  If  this  be  not  the  case,  his 
explicit  warrant  is  a  mere  fiction. 

Now  for  the  explicit  warrant.  Mr.  B.  says,  "  Does  not  Pai^.l,  when 
he  says,  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat,  enjoin  a  re- 
ception of  the  sacred  supper?"  True.  "  Does  not  the  term  Anthro- 
pos^  there  used,  often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species,  without  regard 
to  sex  ?"  True  again.  Observe  this,  often  stand  !  Not  always. 
Does  Mr.  B.  take  this  for  an  explicit  warrant  ?  What  a  demonstration  I 
And  how  full  to  the  point !  But  Mr.  B.  says  it  stands  so  in  the  text. 
How  does  he  know  it  ?  Why,  he  has  two  evidences  of  this  ;  a  lexi- 
cographer, i.  c.  a  dictionary-maker,  and  common  sense.  Common 
sense,  he  says,  is  the  best  of  the  two.  However,  I  will  take  them 
together,  and  proceed  to  ask.  How  do  they  know  that  the  term  An- 
throjios  stands  in  this  text  as  a  name  of  our  species  ?  They  must  know 
it  either  from  the  word  itself,  or  from  some  other  ground.  That  they 
cannot  know  it  from  the  word  itself,  is  evident  by  this  single  consid- 
eration, that  a  boy,  who  reads  his  Greek  testament,  may  meet  with 
the  v/ord  a  hundred  times,  where  the  female  sex  can  by  no  means  be 
intended  ;  nay,  he  may  find  it  used  several  times,  though  Mr.  B. 
could  not,  to  distinguish  the  m.ale  from  the  female.  Where  then  is 
its  explicitness  ?  He  says  it  is  often  used  as  a  name  of  our  species. 
And  is  not  our  English  word,  '  Man,'  used  in  the  same  way  ?  Would 
Mr.  B.  take  that  to  be  an  explicit  word  for  a  v/oman  ?  If  the  word 
'  man'  be  often  used  for  a  name  of  our  species,  as  well  as  Anthroposj 
then  one  is  just  as  explicit  a  word  for  a  woman  as  the  other  ;  and  so 
Mr.  B.  miglit  as  well  have  fixed  on  the  English  v/ord  for  an  explicit 
one,  as  the  Greek.  But  had  he  done  this,  it  would  have  ruined  his 
book  ;  and  he  has  only  escaped  under  the  covert  of  a  Greek  term.  If 
then,  it  cannot  be  known  from  the  word  itself,  that  females  are  intend- 
ed, it  matters  not,  in  what  other  way  we  know  it,  the  Baptist  argu- 
ment is  entirely  ruined  and  lost. 

But  Mr.  B.  in  the  next  sentence,  v/ill  urge  the  matter  further,  and 
boldly  affirm,  that,  "  When  the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  opposed, 
tlie  word  for  a  man  is  not  Anthrojios^  but  Afieer"  I  know  not  what 
Mr.  B.  expected  to  prove  by  this  assertion  ;  for  if  it  were  true,  I  see 
not  how  it  is  to  help  him  in  respect  to  his  explicit  warrant ;  but  as  it 
is  false,  it  cannot  help  him  in  any  form,  except  it  he  to  make  him 
more  cautious  in  future.  This  assertion,  if  it  proceeded  from  ignor- 
ance, is,  in  a  reader  and  writer  like  Mr.  B.  far  too  bad  ;  if  it  did  not 
proceed  from  ignorance,  it  is  far  worse.  I  am  willing  to  suppose  the 
former,  and  acquit  him  of  the  latter. 

Against  this  assertion  of  Mr.  B.  I  will  now  place  nineteen  instanc- 
es ;  in  every  one  of  which  there  is  a  distinction  and  opposition  of  the 
sexes,  and  the  word  for  a  man  is  not  Aneer^  but  Anthropos.  Some  of 
these  are  in  the  Septuagint,  and  others  in  the  New-Testament.  Gen. 
ii.  24.  "  Therefore  shall  a  man  \^Anthrofios']  leave  his  farther  and  his 
mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife."  Gen.  xxvi.  11.  "And  A- 
binjelech  charged  all  his  people  saying.     He  that  toucheth  this  xnai\ 


£  J  JRG  UMEjY  TS  AGjUKST 

[Anthrojioit'l  or  his  wift;  shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  Gen.  xxxiv. 
14.  "  And  Simeon  luid  Levi,  the  brethren  of  Dinah,  said,  We 
cannot  do  this  thinj;,  to  give  our  sister  to  one  \_Aniliropo]  that  is 
imcircumcised."  Deut.  xx.  7.  "  And  what  man  IJnthroJiOs]  is 
there  that  hath  betrothed  a  wife,  and  hath  not  taken  her  ?"  Deut. 
xvii.  5.  "  Then  shalt  thou  bring  forth  that  man,  \_A71throJ10n']  or  that 
"WOMAN."  Jer.  xliv.  7.  '^  Wherefore  commit  ye  this  great  evil  a- 
gainst  your  souls,  to  cut  off  from  you  man  ^^Anthrojioii]  and  womak, 
child  and  suckling  ?"  For  other  instances  in  the  Sept.  see  Gen.  ii.  18. 
Lev.  xix.  20.  Num.  xxv.  8.  Deut.  xxi.  15 — 22.  30.  Esther, 
iv.  11. 

Matt.  xix.  10.  "  His  disciples  say  unto  him,  If  the  case  of  the 
man  \_Anthropou]  be  so  M'ith  his  wife,  it  is  not  good  to  marry.** 
Matt.  xix.  3.  "  The  Pharisees  also  came  unto  him,  tempting  him, 
and  saying  unto  him.  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  \_Anthropo']  to  put  away 
his  WIFE  for  every  cause  ?"  Mark,  x.  7.  "  For  this  cause  shall  a  man 
\_Anthropos']  leave  his  father  and  mother  and  cleave  to  his  wife."  1 
Cor.  vii.  1.  "  Now  concerning  the  things  v/hereof  ye  wrote  unto  me, 
it  is  good  for  a  man  \_Anthropo']  not  to  touch  a  Avoman."  Matt.  xix. 
5.  "  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  \_A}ithropos^^  leave  father  and  mother, 
and  shall  cleave  to  his  wifeJ"  Rev.  ix.  7,  8.  "  And  their  faces  were 
as  the  faces  of  men  \_A?2t/iroJwn']  ;  and  they  had  hair  as  the  hair  of 
luomcn.''''  Eph.  v.  31.  "  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  \_A7Hhropos']  leave 
his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined  unto  his  ivifcJ'*  See  like- 
•wise  1  Cor.  vii.  1.     Matt.  xix.  5.     Eph.  v.  31.     Rev.  ix.  7,  8. 

After  I  had  collected  some  of  these  instances,  which  I  have  here 
set  down,  I  mentioned  the  sentence  of  Mr.  13.  and  likewise  the  instanc- 
es which  lay  against  it,  to  a  Piaptist  minister,  who  happened  to  be  at 
my  house.  He  thereupon  took  the  Greek  Testament,  and  read  those 
places  to  which  I  directed  him.  When  he  had  done  this,  he  was 
greatly  surprised  at  the  incautiousness  of  Mr.  B.  and  at  the  sa.me 
time  made  the  best  apology  for  him,  which  the  case  v/ould  admit 
of.  I  then  observed,  that,  had  Mr.  B.  affirmed  that  Aneer  was 
more  commonly  used  to  distinguish  the  sexes  than  Ardlircfios^  he 
■^vould  have  been  right.  Yes,  said  he,  but  that  Avould  not  have  an- 
swered Mr  B's.  purpose.  Which  indeed  was  very  true  ;  for  he, 
liaving  all  through  his  book  insisted  that  infants  should  not  be  babtiz- 
cd,  because  there  was  no  express  warrant  for  it,  was  compelled,  by 
his  own  reasoning,  to  bring  forward  an  explicit  warrant  for  female  com- 
munion. And  when  he  comes  to  prove  that  there  is  such  a  /'arrant 
in  Scripture  for  female  right  to  the  Lord's  supper,  he  first  of  all  falls 
upon  presumptive  proof,  "  Does  not  the  term  Anthrojios  often  stand  ?cs 
a  name  of  our  species  ?"  As  if  he  had  said.  If  this  word  often 
stand  as  a  name  of  our  species,  I  presume  it  is  possible  it  may  so  stand 
in  this  text.  In  the  next  place  he  falls  upon  inferential  proof,  and  sets 
a  lexicographer  and  common  sense  to  infer  (for  they  could  do  no 
ether)  that  so  it  must  mean  in  the  text.  And  lastly,  to  make  it  still 
■worse,  he  falls  upon  an  evident  falsehood,  when  he  says,  that,  when 
the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  opposed,  the  word  for  a  man  is  not 
Jlnihrofiofi^  but  Anter.  This  is  all  Mr.  B.  is  pleased  to  give  the  reader, 
instead  of  an  explicit  warrant,  presumption,  inference,  and  falsehood  :^ 


IjvfjjY  t  bap  risM.  \% 

and  if  either  he,  or  any  cf  his  readers  can  satisfy  themselves  with  such 
an  explicit  warrant  as  this,  they  canneither  of  them  be  esteemed  very 
nice  in  tliis  article. 

But,  to  set  Mr.  B.  ar.d  his  explicit  warrant  in  a  clear  point  of  light, 
the  reader  has  only  to  contemplate  those  two  facts,  which  have  just 
passed  under  his  eye  ;  namely,  that  Anthropos  is  often  used  as  a  name 
of  our  species,  as  IVIr.  B.  affirms  ;  and  like^vise  that  it  is  often  used  to 
distinguish  one  sex  from  the  other.  Now  with  these  two  facts  in  view, 
\xnz.  Aiithrojws  is  often  used  as  a  name  of  our  species,  and  often  it  is 
not  so  used]  if  a  question  ])e  started  concerning  its  meaning  in  any  text, 
let  it  be  1  Cor.  xi.  28,  the  reader  will  see  at  or^ce  that  it  is  no  explicit 
word,  because  he  will  stand  in  need  of  a  third  thing,  to  determine  in 
what  sense  it  is  used  there  ;  v.'hcrcas,  if  the  vv'ord  were  explicit,  noth- 
ing else  would  be  necessary  to  fix  the  sense.  Nov/  as  the  facts  v/eigh 
on  both  sides,  often  against  oftex,  and  as  the  reader  wants  a  third 
thing  to  settle  the  import  of  the  word  in  tliis  text,  I  ask,  What  is 
this  third  thing  ?  Lexicographers  and  common  sense,  says  Mr.  B. 
Nay,  no  ambiguity.  Sir,  we  are  now  talking  of  explicitness.  Why 
did  you  not  say  analogy  and  inference  ?  Shocking  !  What !  give  up 
the  cause  at  once  !  But  what,  I  say  again,  is  this  third  thing  ?  Is 
Mr.  B.  afraid  of  telling  ?  I  wish,  however,  he  would  write  again, 
and  say  in  plain  term.s  what  it  is.  Is  it  what  you  speak  of  in  the 
latter  part  of  tlie  defence,  viz.  '  that  women  have  the  same  pre-requi- 
sites  as  men,  and  that  male  and  female  are  one  in  Christ  ?'  Very 
j^ood. — Proceed. — Therefore — I  say  go  on,  do  not  be  afraid,  this 
v,i\\  bring  you  cafe  to  your  conclusion  ;  for  it  is  only  analogy  and  in- 
ference. Inference  and  analogy  !  and  upon  a  positive  institute  too  ! 
I  cannot  bear  the  terms  ;  I  v.ould  nmch  rather  call  them  lexicograph- 
ers and  common  sense  ;  for  were  I  to  call  them  inference  and  analo- 
gy it  would  ruin  my  whole  book.  It  is  very  true,  Mr.  B.  ;  but  at 
tiie  same  time,  is  it  not  better  your  book  should  be  ruined  by  plain 
dealing,  than  that  your  reputation  should  seem  to  be  stained  by  acting 
an  artful  part  ?  But  after  all,  here  is  a  third  thing  wanting  to  settle  the 
meaning  of  this  ambiguous  word.  And  what  in  the  world  does  it  sig- 
nify by  what  name  we  call  this  third  thing  ?  For  whether  we  name  it 
analogy,  or  inference,  or  lexicographer,  or  common  sense,  (which  two 
last  are  Mr.  B's.  names,  as  he  could  not  bear  the  others  on  a  positive 
institute)  it  comes  still  to  the  same  thing  ;  it  shows  that  this  is  no  ex- 
plicit word  for  females,  and  consequently  as  there  is  no  other,  this  ar  ^ 
gument  is  ruined. 

What  I  have  now  animadverted  upon  is  all  Mr.  B.  says,  that  can 
even  pretend  to  evince  an  explicit  warrant.  But  since  the  m  hole  of  it, 
upon  his  principles,  is  as  curious  a  defence  of  female  right  to  the  Lord's 
table  as  ever  was  presented  to  the  public,  I  will  pay  him  the  compli- 
ment of  surveying  it,  and  taking  it  to  pieces,  in  due  time  and  place. 
In  the  mean  time  I  do  not  blame  Mr.  B.  for  not  being  able  to  produce 
an  explicit  warrant  for  women  ;  it  is  what  no  man  is  ai)le  to  do  ;  but 
I  do  blame  him  for  using  such  reasoning  as  he  has  done,  and  then 
passing  it  upon  the  public  under  the  colour  of  explicit  proof. 

It  is  a  common  opinion  that  Baptists  and  Pxdobaptists  do  reason 
difierently  on  positive  institutes  :  that  the  former  invariably  insist  upon 


^4  'jiRGUME.YTS  AGAIK^T 

express  proof,  vrhile  the  latter  admit  the  force  of  inferential  reason- 
ini^.  It  is  true  they  profess  to  reason  differently,  and  they  actually  do  ! 
sometimes  ;  but  then  it  is  only  according  to  the  mood  they  may  be  in, 
and  the  matter  they  may  have  in  hand.  Let  the  matter  of  debate  Ijc 
a  little  varied,  and  they  reason  on  positive  institutes  precisely  in  the 
^same  v/ay. 

I  have  taken  the  liberty,  in  time  past,  to  ask  Pjcdobaptists  -vvhy 
they  baptized  their  infarts  ?  One  has  told  me,  that  infants  Avere  cir- 
cumcised, and  therefore  should  now  be  baptized ;  inferring  their  bap- 
tism from  circumcision.  Another  has  told  me,  that  our  Lord  took 
infants  into  his  arms,  and  blessed  them,  and  said  they  were  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  so  inferring  their  baptism  from  the  language 
and  conduct  of  Christ.  At  hearing  this  the  Baptists  smile,  and  think 
it  very  foolish  reasoning. 

I  have  also  taken  the  liberty  to  ask  Baptists,  why  they  admitted 
ivomen  to  the  Lord's  table  ?  One  informed  me,  that  women  were 
partakers  of  the  grace  of  God ;  inferring  their  right  to  communi- 
cate from  theii'  grace.  Another  told  me,  that  v/omen  had  been  bap- 
tized ;  and  inferred  their  right  to  the  supper  fiom  their  baptism.  A 
third  gave  me  to  understand,  that  women  did  eat  of  the  paschal  lamb, 
and  from  thence  inferred  their  right  to  the  Lord's  table.  A  fourth 
told  me  that  women  were  creatures  of  God  as  well  as  men  ;  and  so 
inferred  their  right  from  their  creation.  These  Baptists  did  all  infer, 
and,  as  Mr.  B.  says  of  Psedobaptists,  not  feeding  the  ground  on  which 
they  stood,  they  agreed  in  one  conclusion,  but  did  not  agree  in  the 
premises  from  which  it  should  be  drawn. 

It  may  perhaps  be  said,  that  these  persons  did  not  possess  logical 
exactness  ;  that  they  were  not  aware  of  the  im.propriety  of  demand- 
ing plain,  express,  imequivocal  proof;  and  then,  as  it  suite.d  their 
convenience,  flying  directly  to  inference,  implication,  and  analogy  ; 
and  that  too  on  a  positive  ordinance.  I  grant  they  v/ere  plain  per- 
sons, and  did  not  see  the  inconsistencey  of  this  conduct.  Well,  we 
will  betake  ourselves  to  men  of  skill,  to  those  who  are  acquainted 
with  logical  precision  ;  and  then  let  us  see  how  they  act  in  this  busi- 
ness. What  think  you  of  Mr.  Booth,  as  a  man  of  erudition  and 
logical  attainment  ?  Does  Mr.  B.  say  you  employ  inferential  reason- 
ing on  a  positive  institute  ?  Nothing  in  the  Morld  more  certain. 
What !  Mr.  B. ;  he  who  has  written  so  many  hundred  pages  with 
a  view  to  expose  it  !  Yes,  that  identical  Mr.  B.  to  the  reproach  of 
all  consistency,  does,  in  that  very  work,  M-hen  sad  necessity  comj^els, 
even  deal  in  this  same  inferential  reasoning.  I  \\  ill  not  evidence  this 
now,  since  I  have  promised  to  notice  his  whole  defence  of  Avomen  in 
a  more  proper  place. 

All  I  am  concerned  to  do  in  this  place,  is  to  show  that  this  argu- 
ment of  the  Baptists  is  false.  The  argument  is  this :  "  A  person 
ivho  has  a  right  to  a  positive  institute,  must  be  expressly  mentioned 
as  having  that  right ;  but  infants  are  not  so  mentioned,  &:c."  That 
the  argument  is  false,  appears  from  these  facts  : 

I.  The  Scriptures  do  not  countenance  it.  For  as  it  is  not  proved 
by  any  part  of  the  word  of  God,  being  neither  set  down  in  the 
"words,  nor  yet  in  the  sen^e  of  holy  writ,  and  therefore  a  fiction,  in- 


lvfjjvt  baptism.  li 

vented  by  men  to  support  a  particular  opinion  ;  so  it  stands  directly 
against  God's  holy  word.  And  this  is  evident  from  hence  ;  that' 
though  women  are  expressly  said  to  have  been  baptized,  they  arc  nev- 
er said  to  have  received  the  Lord's  supper.  The  Scriptures,  there- 
fore, in  plain  opposition  to  this  false  argument,  leave  us  to  conclude 
their  rif^ht  to  the  Lord's  supper  from  their  baptism,  together  with 
other  grounds.     Thus  it  has  no  support  from  Scripture. 

II.  The  Baptists  themselves  do  not  countenai^ice  it  ;  for  though 
they  have  written  whole  books  on  the  strength  of  it,  they  are  com- 
pelled to  desert  it,  and  to  desert  it  the  moment  the  subject  is  varied. 
For  after  they  have  vapoured  ever  so  long,  and  ever  so  loud,  about 
••'  no  express  lavr— .no  explicit  v^'-arrant  for  infant  baptism — infant  bap- 
tism is  no  where  mentioned  in  Scripture  ;"  let  any  one  put  it  upon 
them  to  prove  the  right  of  women  to  tlie  supper,  and  I  will  answer 
for  it  he  will  hear  no  more  of  express  law  on  that  head.  He  will  hnd 
that  all  this  hollow  sound,  vvhich  signifies  nothing,  will  die  away,  and 
each  will  shift  for  himself  the  best  way  he  can,  and  fly  for  aid  to  anal- 
ogy and  inference.  Women,  they  say,  may  be  gracious. — Women 
were  baptized — Women  did  eat  of  the  paschal  lamb — .Women  are 
creatures  of  God,  as  well  as  men,  and  tl-ierefore, — Tlicrefore  what  ? 
\y\\y  therefore  they  should  receive  the  Lord's  supper.  What  now 
is  become  of  their  express  law  ?  It  is  deserted,  completely  deserted  ; 
nor  will  they  adopt  it  again  till  infant  baptism  is  resumed. — ^The  Bap- 
tists, therefore,  do  not  countenance  it. 

III.  Mr.  Booth  himself  does  not  countenance  it  ;  I  m.ean,  not 
always  countenance  it  :  For  tliough  he  has  demanded  explicit  proof 
lor  infant  baptism,  and  has  contended  that  if  such  proof  cannot  be  ad- 
duced, the  baptism  of  infants  must  be  Vv rong,  yet,  vvlien  he  comes 
to  produce  an  explicit  warrant  for  female  communion,  he  is  content. 
—Nay,  stop — I  cannot  say  he  is  content-— but  he  is  compelled  to  fly- 
to  presuming — to  implication — to  analogy — to  inference — to  make  out 
an  explicit  warrant  !  All  this  we  engage  to  prove,  and  to  make  a 
proper  use  of  in  the  sequal.  And  I  cannot  help  observing,  that  if 
female  communion  cannot  be  supported  on  the  principle  of  this  argu- 
ment, liov/  idle  a  thing  it  is  to  forge  a  rule  to  operate  against  infants 
©Illy. 

Finally,  as  this  argument  militates  against  female  communion,  as 
well  as  infant  baptism,  they  must  either  both  be  wrong,  or  the  argu- 
ment itself  must  be  false.  That  the  argumerit  is  false,  is  suft^iciently 
evident,  as  it  not  only  has  no  support  from  Scripture,  but  lies  direct- 
ly against  it  ;  and  from  what  I  have  observed,  in  many  recent  con- 
versations, I  do  not  suppose  there  is  a  single  Baptist  in  the  kingdom 
that  v/ill  even  dare  to  stick  to  it.  For  after  they  had  urged  this  argu- 
ment upon  me,  I  have  turned  the  question  from  infant  ba})tism  to  fe- 
male comimunion,  and  I  do  not  recollect  one,  either  minister  or  pri- 
vate person,  but  has,  in  little  more  than  a  quarter  of  an  hour,  entire- 
ly given  up  the  argument.  And  if  Mr.  B.  should  think  proper  to 
take  up  his  pen  once  more  on  this  subject,  I  ha.ve  not  a  doubt  but  I 
should  be  able  to  compel  even  him,  as  well  as  many  of  his  brethren, 
to  relinquish  it  as  a  false  argument  ;  and  I  hope  he  will  take  up  \os 
pen  once  again,  ioid  vindicate  his  defence  of  female  communicn. 


^&.  JRCUMEjXTS  agalyst 

I  have  been  the  longer  on  this  argument,  because,  as  it  is  very  fre- 
quently urged,  so  it  contains  precisely  one  half  of  the  Baptist  strength. 
This  argument,  therefore,  being  destroyed,  just  half  their  strength  is 
gone.  And  if  any  one  should  be  inclined  to  cry  out,  "  There  is  no 
explicit  example — there  is  no  express  law  for  infant  baptism,  &c.'* 
any  person  has  it  in  his  power  to  quiet  him  almost  in  an  instant,  should 
he  only  ask  him  to  produce  his  explicit  law,  &c.  for  female  commun- 
ion.— Thus  much  for  this  bad  argument ;   and  I  pass  to  the  other. 


ARGUMENT  II. 

The  Scrifitui'cs  veqidre  faith  and  repentance  as  requisite  to  Baptism  ;  but 
as  infants  cannot  have  these^  they  are  not  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 
— Infants^  say  the  Baptists^  canriot  believe^  cannot  repent ;  and  none 
should  be  bapuizecl  ivithout  faith ^  is'c. 


X  HE  most  expeditious  way  of  destroying  this  argument  would  be 
this.  They  say  the  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  in  order 
to  baptism.  I  ask,  Of  whom  ?  The  ansv/er  must  be.  Of  adults  ; 
for  the  Scriptures  never  require  them  of  infants,  in  order  to  any 
thing.  Then  fi-une  the  argument  thus  : — The  Scriptures  require 
faith  and  repentance  of  adults,  in  order  to  baptism. — Now  you  see 
infants  are  gone,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  argument  ;  or  if 
they  must  be  brought  in,  the  argument  will  run  thus  : — The  Scrip- 
tures require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults,  in  order  to  baptism  ; 
but  as  INFANTS  cannot  have  these,  tliey  are  unfit  subjects  of  that  or- 
dinance. Now  it  is  a  glaring  sophism  ;  with  adults  in  one  proposi- 
tion, and  infants  in  the  other.  Were  I  only  to  leave  the  argument 
thus,  and  say  no  more  upon  it,  it  would  not  be  possible  to  save  it 
from  perdition  ;  but  since  it  is  the  only  remaining  half  of  the  Baptist 
strength,  I  will  examine  it  more  at  la.rge. 

In  order  to  judge  of  the  real  w^orth  of  an  argument,  I  lay  down 
this  rule  :  "  Every  argument  that  will  prove  against  an  evident  truth  ; 
or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  every  argument  which  will  support  a 
falsehood,  is  clearly  a  bad  argument."  This  rule  is  self-evident  ;  for 
that  must  needs  be  false  which  tends  to  prove  a  falsehood. 

I  will  proceed  by  this  rule,  and  attempt  to  show^,  I.  That  this  ar- 
gument is  entirely  fallacious.  II.  Point  out  wherein  its  fallacy  con- 
sists. 

I.  Of  the  fallacy  of  this  argument.  The  principle  of  it  is,  that 
infants  are  excluded  from  baptism,  because  something  is  said  of  bap- 
tism w^hich  vvill  not  agree  to  infants.  To  see  therefore  the  tendency 
of  this  argument,  whether  it  will  prove  on  the  side  of  truth  or  error, 
I  will  try  its  operations  on  these  four  subjects. 

1.  On  the  circumcision  of  infants. — That  infants  v/ere  circumcised, 
is  a  fact. — That  they  v\^ere  circumcised  by  the  express  command  of 
God,  is  a  proof  of  right. — .They  were  actually  circumcised,  and  it 
was  right  they  should  i)e  so. — Therefore  that  they  were  proper  sub- 
jects of  that  institute,  is  an  evident  truth.  Now  on  this  truth  I  mean 
to  try  the  argument^  to  sc^  if  it  will  prove  for,  or  against  it. 


LYFJjYT  bap  J'ISM.  1 7 

Circumcision,  as  it  was  a  solemn  entering  into  the  Church  of  God, 
did  fix  an  obU;^ation  on  tlie  circumcised  to  conform  to  the  lay/s  and 
ordinances  of  that  church*  Hence  that  speech,  Acts  xv.  24.  "  Ye 
must  be  circumcised,  and  keep  the  law  ;"  which  would  have  been  just, 
if  circumcision  had  not  been  abolished.  The  Apostle  says,  Gal.  v.  3, 
"  Every  man  v*'ho  is  circumcised,  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law." 
His  meaning  is,  if  circumcision  be  in  force,  so  must  its  obligation 
too.  And  Rom.  ii.  35,  lie  says,  "  Circumcision  proliteth  if  thou 
keep  the  law  ;  but,  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  lav.^  thy  circumcision 
is  made  uncircumcision."  The  sum  of  this  is,  he  that  was  circum- 
cised became  a  debtor  ;  if  he  kept  the  law  to  vfhich  he  was  bound,  his 
circumcision  would  profit  ;  but  if  he  violated  it,  his  circumcision  be- 
came a  nullity. 

Now  I  ask,  Did  it  agree  to  an  infant  to  become  a  de]:)tor  ?  Did  it 
agree  to  an  infant  to  break  or  keep  the  law  ?  Mr.  Booth  shall  answer 
both.  To  the  first  he  says,  vol.  ii.  page  151,  "  Infants  are  not  capa- 
ble of  contracting  either  Avith  God  or  man.  TJiat,  to  suppose  any 
such  thing,  itisuits  the  understanding  and  feelings  of  mankind.  For,  as 
Bishop  Sanderson  observes,  "  In  personal  obligaiions  no  man  is  bound 
without  his  own  consent."  To  the  other  he  ansvrers,  ""  The  minds 
of  mere  infants  are  not  capable  of  comparing  theh*  own  conduct  with 
the  rule  of  duty  ;  they  have,  properly  spcaldng,  no  conscience  at  all." 
Infants  therefore  could  not  become  debtors  ;  they  could  not  keep  the 
law.  Very  well.  Then  it  is  clear  there  was  som.ething  said  of  cir- 
cumcision v/hich  did  no  more  agree  to  infiints,  than  if  it  had  been  said, 
Repent,  and  be  baptized. 

In  this  respect  baptism  and  circumcision  are  upon  a  level  ;  for  there 
is  something  said  concerning  both,  which  v/ill  by  no  means  agree  to 
infants.  Infants,  on  the  one  hand,  can  neither  believe  ncr  repent  ; 
and  these  are  connected  with  baptism  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  inflmts 
cannot  become  debtors,  they  cannot  keep  the  lavv'  ;  and  these  are  con- 
nected v.'ith  circumcision.  And  then  if  we  say  as  the  Baptists  do, 
that  infants,  since  they  cannot  believe  or  repent,  must  not  be  baptized, 
because  faith  and  repentance  are  connected  vv^ith  baptism  ;  we  muct 
say  likewise,  infants  cannot  become  debtors,  they  cannot  keep  the  law  ; 
and  because  these  are  connected  with  circumcision,  they  must  not  be 
circumcised.  And  then  it  follows  that  this  argument,  by  pro^  ing  a- 
gainst  a  knov^Ti  truth,  appears  af:illacious  argument. 

But  it  may  be  said,  circumcision  of  infants  was  commanded  of  God, 
and  was  therefore  certainly  right.  To  tliis  I  answer,  that  that  is  the 
very  principle  on  vrhich  I  proceed,  and  it  is  that  very  thing  which 
proves  fatal  to  this  argumen.t ;  for  the  circumcision  of  infants  being 
an  evident  truth,  and  tiie  argument  before  us  proving  against  it,  it  is 
a  plain  demonstration  of  its  absurdity  and  fidlacy.  Now  if  this  argu- 
ment be  such,  that  had  it  been  used  by  a  Jew  in  the  land  of  Canaan, 
it  would  have  proved  against  an  ordinance  of  Cod,  I  would  fain  know, 
if  its  nature  can  in  any  measure  be  changed,  merely  on  its  being  used 
by  a  Baptist,  and  in  a  different  climate  ?  1  proceed  to  try  it, 

2.  On  the  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  baptism  of  Christ  is  a 
known  fact  ;  and  that  he  was  a  fit  subject,  is  an  acknowledged  truth. 
.It  is  likevrise  certain,  that,  as  he  was  no  sinner,  hs  could  hav^  no  rei« 

C 


1 8  ARGUMLJ^TS  AGALXST 

pentilTice  ;  r.nd  siPxCe  he  needed  no  salvation  from  sin,  he  could  not 
have  t!ie  feitih  of  God's  elect ;  that  is,  he  could  not  h.ave  that  faith 
Vs'hich-  the  Scriptures  require  to  baptism. 

Now  the  tendency  of  this  an^'Uinent  i:>eing  to  prove  that  those  wlio 
cannot  have  failh  and  repentance  are  unfit  subjects  of  baptism  ;  and 
Scviptiirc  informinji;  \is  that  our  Lord  Jesus  was  baptized,  who  could 
have  neither,  the  dilemma  thercfoie  will  be  this  ;  either  the  baptism 
of  Christ  was  wrong,  or  else  this  argument  is  false.  It  is  impossible 
to  suppose  the  first,  that  the  baptism  of  Christ  was  ^,vix>n'^  ;  we  must 
therefore  aHirm  tiie  last,  that  this  argument  is  false  :  Because  that 
argument  must  be  false  which  proves  against  an  evident  truth. 

Again,  when  it  is  said  in  the  argument,  that  the  Scviptiu^es  require 
faith  and  repentance,  in  order  to  baptism  ;  I  ask,  Do  they  require 
them  of  ^W  or  of  some  only  ?  If  it  is  said,  they  are  required  of  all  ; 
theUj  as  before  noled,  it  proves  against  the  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ. 
If  it  be  said,  they  require  them  of  some  only  ;  then  the  argument  has 
no  force  :  For,  in  that  case,  it  would  run  thus — Faith  and  repen- 
tajice  are  required  only  of  some,  in  order  to  baptism  :  And  now  the 
consequent  will  be,  tliat  some  may  be  baptized  without  tiiem.  And 
nothing  wou.ld  remain  then,  but  t]:iat  it  be  determined,  who  should  be 
baptized  without  faith,  and  who  with. 

View  it  which  way  we  will,  the  argument  is  miserably  bad.  The 
Baptists  however,  in  this  ca,se,  fiy  to  its  relief  by  saying,  "  tliat  Je- 
sus Christ,  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  his  person,  v-as  exempted 
from  this  rule."  Hov/  this  will  mend  the  matter  I  see  not  ;  for  now 
it  is  acknovviedged  to  be  a  rule  which  \A\\  admit  of  exception.  And 
then  I  have  only  to  ask,  how  many  exceptions  does  it  admit,  and 
what  are  they  ?  Neither  would  it  be  better  to  say,  that  Christ  was 
baptized  to  set  us  an  example.  For  then  v/e  should  have  an  example 
of  one,  v>-ho  beinp;  incapable  of  faith  and  repentance,  v/as  baptized  with- 
out tliem.  And  in  this  viev/  his  example  will  weigh  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism.     I  will  try  it  again, 

3.  On  the  salvation  of  infants.  That  Inllmts  may  be  the  subjects 
cf  salvation^  is  universally  admitted  ;  that  those,  who  die  in  infancy, 
are  actually  glorifiedj  is  also  granted  :  And  yet  there  is  some- 
thing said  concerning  salvation,  v/hich  Avill  by  no  means  agree  to  in- 
fants—*" He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved  ;  he  tliat  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned,"  8vc. 

What  shall  we  say  in  this  case  ?  Why,  the  same  as  befc?'e.  If  in- 
fants must  not  be  baptized,  because  something  is  said  of  baptism, 
which  does  not  agree  to  infants  ;  then,  by  the  san^e  rule,  infants  must 
not  be  saved,  because  something  is  said  of  salvation,  wliich  does  not 
agree  to  infants.  And  then,  the  same  consequence  again  foilo"^v's, 
that  this  argument,  by  proving  against  an  acknowledged  truth,  proves 
itself  to  be  fallacious. 

And  now,  since  it  falls  in  v/ith  my  present  design,  and  may  serve. 
to  relieve  and  inform  the  reader,  I  will  present  him  with  two  speci- 
mens of  reasoning  on  the  same  text  :  one  of  which  concludes  against 
infant  baptism  and  the  other  for  it.  The  reader  may  adopt  that  which 
pleases  him  best. 

The  first  specimen  shall  be  that  of  IMr.  S,  vol.  ii.  page  309,  where 


? 


IjVFJ.YT  baptism.  19 

Ije  adopts  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Chambers  :  "  Vs'hat  t'r.ey  [the  German 
Baptists]  chiefly  supported  their  great  doctrine  on,  was  those  words 
of  our  Savior:  'He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved.' 
As  none  but  adults  arc  capable  of  belie vins^^tliey  argued  tliat  no  oth- 
ers are  capable  of  baptism." — If  these  had  gone  one  step  further, 
their  argument  would  have  been  lost.  e.g.  As  none  but  adults  are 
capable  of  believing,  none  but  adults  are  capable  of  being  saved. 
This  with  the  Baptists  is  a  favorite  text;  and  they  an^ue«lipon  it 
from  the  order  of  the  words  :  If,  say  tlicy,  faith  g-oes  before  baptism, 
then  infants  must  not  be  baptized,  because  they  have  no  faith. 

The  other  is  that  cfDr.  Walker,  out  of  his  Modest  Plea,  page  17'9. 
His  words  are  these  :  "  If  none  must  be  baptized  but  he  that  believes, 
because  believing  is  set  first;  then  none  mus:t  be  saved  but  he  that  is 
baptized,  because  baptizing  is  set  first.  And  then,  what  better  argument 
<'an  be  made  for  infant  baptism  ?  They  nmst  be  baptized  if  we  will 
have  them  saved  ;  because  they  cannot  be  saved  without  being  baptiz- 
ed ;  for  baptizing  goes  before  saving.  And  yet  from  the  same  text, 
and  by  the  same  way  of  arguing,  it  may  be  proved,  that  no  infimts  at-e 
saved,  but  those  that  believe  ;  because  believing  is  set  before  saving: 
And  not  only  so,  but  v^^hereas  it  is  net  said,  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
not  be  baptized  ;  it  is  said,  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

The  difference  between  the  reasoning  of  these  tv;o,  lies  in  this : 
The  Baptists  reason  on  a  part  of  the  text  only,  and  the  Doctor  rea- 
soned on  the  whole.  And  to  show  how  miserably  flillacious  the  rea- 
soning of  the  Baptists  is,  I  will  lay  down  a  plan  of  their  logic  on  this 
text,  which  will  proiiuce  more  conchisions  than  there  are  principal 
words  in  that  part  of  the  verse.  The  place  is,  Mark,  xvi.  16.  "  He 
that  believeth,  and  is  l^aptized,  shall  be  saved."  Novi^  as  the  Bap- 
tists reason  from  the  order  of  the  words,  I  will  mark  them  v/ith  fig- 

1  2  3 

ures — believeth — ^baptized — saved. 

The  logic  is  as  ibiiows :  Take  th«  first  and  second-— believeth— ^ 
baptized — .and  say  with  the  Baptists — 

1.  None  are  to  be  baptized  but  such  as  believe,  because  believing 

1  2 

must  be  before  baptizing. — "  Belie vetli" — '^  baptized. 

This  will  conclude  against  infant  baptism. 

Next  take  the  first  and  third— believeth— saved— and  say  in  the 
same  way  : 

2d.  None  are  to  be  saved  but   such  as   believe,  because  believing 

1  3 

must  be  before  saving. — "  Believeth" — "  saved." 

This  concludes  against  infant  salvation. 

Now  take  tiie  second  and  tliird-^baptized — saved — and  argue  in  the 
same  manner : 

3.  None  are  to  be  saved  but  sucli   as  are  baptized,  because  baptiz* 

2  3 

ing  must  go  before  saving. — "  Baptized" — "  saved." 

This  win  conclude  on  the  side  of  infant  baptism,  they  must  be  bap- 
tized, or  they  cannot  be  saved.     As  Dr.  Walker  reasons. 

Lastly,  take  all  three — believeth — baptized — saved — and  say  : 

4,  None  are   to  be  saved  but  such  as  believe  and  are  baptized,  be- 


m  JRGUME^fTS  AGAIjVST 

1 

eause  believing  iind  baptizing  must  be  before  saving. — "  Beiieveth" — 

2  '      3 

«  baptized"—"  saved." 

Tins  concludes  aqainst  the  salvation  of  believers  in  Jesus  Christ,  if 
they  have  not  been  baptized.  And  so  upon  the  principle  of  the  Bap- 
tists, it  concludes  against  the  salvation  of  all  Predobaptists. 

All  these  conclusions,  arising*  from  the  same  v^^ay  of  reasoning,  may 
serve  as  a  specimen  to  show  the  fallacious  mode  of  arguing  against  in- 
fant baptism,  adopted  by  the  Baptists. 

Let  it  be  tried  once  more, 

4.  On  the  temporal  subsistence  of  infants.  As  the  reader  may  per- 
ceive the  drift  of  the  reasoning,  on  these  instances,  I  will  use  but  few 
words  on  the  present  one.  Now  that  infants  should  be  supported,  not 
only  Scripture,  but  Nature  itself  teaches.  And  yet,  if  we  form  the 
Baptist  argument,  on  a  few  places  of  Scripture,  it  may  be  proved,  in 
opposition  to  Nature  and  Scripture  both,  that  infants  should  actually 
be  left  to  starve, 

Vv'e  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  mention  the  texts,  and  apply  their 
reasoning  to  them.  Isaiah,  i.  19.  "  If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient, 
ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land.''  2.  Thess.  iii.  10.  "  If  any 
v/oukl  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat."  Take  the  first,  and  say  with 
the  Baptists  in  another  case  :  Willingness  and  obedience  are  required 
of  those  who  are  to  eat  the  good  of  the  land  ;  but  since  infants  can 
neither  will  nor  ol>ey,  they  must  not  eat  the  good  of  the  land. — In 
the  same  way  let  the  other  be  taken  :  Ke  that  will  not  work,  neither 
shall  he  eat  ;  infants  cannot  will  to  v/ork,  then  infants  must  not  eat. 

This  argument,  in  v/hatever  way  it  is  viewed,  proves  against  the 
truth.  Is  it  a  truth  that  infants  should  subsist  ?  This  argument 
proves  against  it.  Is  it  a  truth  that  infants  may  be  saved  ?  This  argu- 
ment will  prove  the  contrary.  Was  Christ  rightly  baptized  ?  Ac- 
cording to  this  argument  it  could  not  be.  Were  infants  proper  sub- 
jects of  circumcision  ?  This  argument  will  prove  they  v^ere  not. — 
Then,  if  it  invariably  supports  a  falsehood,  we  are  compelled  to  say  it 
is  a  false  argument. 

II.  I  will  point  out  v/herein  this  fallacy  consits.  As  tliis  argu- 
ment, notwithstanding  it  is  false,  is  used  by  the  Baptists  in  general, 
both  learned  and  unlearned,  I  Vvill  attempt  to  lay  open  its  fallacy  ; 
and  thereby  put  those  persons  upon  their  guard,  who  may  be  in  dan- 
ger of  being  seduced  by  it.  The  judicious  reader  may  have  observ- 
ed, that  I  slightly  hinted,  at  the  outset,  Avherein  its  fault  consisted  ; 
but  to  make  it  yet  more  evident  what  that  fault  is,  of  Avhich  it  is 
guilty,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  saying  a  fev/ words  more. 

That  particular  rule,  against  v/hich  this  argument  offends,  is  this  : 
*'  JVuii  debet  plus  esse  in  conciusionc  quam  erat  inpremissis.  Ratio  mavJfesta 
cst^  quia  condusio  educenda  est  ex premissis.'^^  That  is,  ''  There  should 
not  be  more  in  the  conclusion  than  v/as  in  the  premises.  The  reason  is 
plain,  because  the  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  premises.'* 
We  will  try  to  make  this  plain,  by  -  examples  both  of  triie  and  falsu 
reasoning. 

1.  In  the  Baptist  way  of  reasoning. — When  the  Scriptures  say, 
<*  Repent  and  be  baptized  i"   and;  ^'  If  thou  believest  thou  mayest/* 


IKFAX  T  BAP  TISM.  2  f 

£cc.  they  address  only  sinful  adults  ;  and  then,  an  argument  formed 
upon  them  should  reach  no  farther  than  adults  of  the  same  description. 
But  the  Baptists  form  their  fallacious  argument  on  these  passages,  by 
bringing  infants  into  the  conclusion,  who,  as  they  are  not  addressed, 
are  not  at  all  concerned  in  the  premises.  This  will  appear  plain  by- 
three  instances  on  the  Baptist  plan. 

The  Baptist  argument  runs  thus  :  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and 
repentance  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  infants  have  not  faith  and  repen- 
tance ;  therefore  they  are  not  to  be  baptized.  Now  as  the  Scriptures 
require  faith  and  repentance  only  of  adults,  we  must  place  that  word 
in  the  argument,  and  then  it  wiil  stand  in  this  form  :  The  Scriptures 
require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  in- 
fants cannot  have  these:  Therefore  infants  are  not  fit  subjects  of 
baptism.  In  the  samev^ay,  we  may  form  the  two  following  instan- 
ces, ~oiz.  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in 
order  to  salvation  ;  but  infants  cannot  have  these  :  Therefore  infants 
cannot  be  saved.  Again,  He,  [an  adult]  who  will  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat ;  but  an  infant  cannot  will  to  work,  therefore  an  infant 
should  not  eat.— The  reader  may  perceive,  that  by  placing  the  word 
adults  in  one  proposition,  and  infants  in  the  other  (which  "makes  it  a 
sophism)  there  are  three  things  proved  in  the  same  way,  viz.  That 
infants  cannot  be  saved — that  infants  should  not  eat — that  infants  should 
not  be  baptized.  And  so,  for  the  same  reason,  that  an  infant  can-? 
not  be  saved,  thrd  an  infant  should  not  eat ;  it  will  follow,  that  an 
infant  should  not  be  baptized.  For  all  these  are  equally  true,  and 
supported  by  the  same  reasoning.  And  it  is  in  the  same  way,  that 
this  argument  proves  against  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  the  circum- 
cision of  infants.     We  will  now  view  these  three  instances, 

2.  In  the  Pxdobaptist  way  of  reasoning. — We  wiil  place  the  same 
word  in  each  proposition,  thus  :  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and  re- 
pentance of  adults  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  some  adults  have  no 
faith,  no  repentance  ;  therefore  some  adults  are  not  to  be  baptized. 
Again,  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in  order 
to  salvation  ;  but  some  adults  do  not  believe  nor  repent  ;  therefore 
some  adults  will  not  be  saved.  Once  more — He  [an  adult]  who  will 
not  work,  neither  should  he  eat ;  but  some  adult  v/iil  not  work  ; 
therefore  some  adult  should  not  eat.^ — Now  by  placing  the  w^ord  adult 
in  each  proposition,  v/ithout  which  it  would  be  a  sophistical  argu- 
ment, the  reader  may  see,  that  as  infants  can  have  no  place  in  either, 
there  is  nothing  to  forbid  their  support,  their  salvation,  or  their  bap- 
tism. They  only  prove,  that  an  idle  adult  should  not  be  supported  ; 
that  an  impenitent  adult  will  not  be  saved  ;  and,  that  he  has  no  right  at 
all  to  baptism. 

Once  more. — As  I  have  notliing  in  view,  so  much  as  truth,  I  have 
a  great  desire  to  make  this  matter  plain  to  the  meanest  capacity.  For 
if  I  am  clearly  understood  in  this  part,  my  end,  on  the  present  argu- 
ment, is  attained  ;  and  Avhat  I  have  before  advanced  upon  it  will  be, 
in  a  great  measure,  useless.  The  reader,  therefore,  is  desired  to  ob- 
serve, that  the  design  of  this  argument  is  to  conclude  against  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.  Then,  as  infants  are  to  be  m  the  conclusion,  they 
must  also  be  in  the  premise 3  j  for  the  rule  says,  'H^ie^e  should  not 


^'i  ARGUME^rrS  AGALYST 

be  more  in  the  conclusion  than  Avas  in  the  premises  ;  because  the  con- 
clusion is  to  be  drawn  from  the  premises." 

Now  to  make  the  argument  of  the  Baptists  consistent  with  itself, 
we  must  place  infants  in  the  premises  as  well  as  in  the  conclusion  ;  and 
then  the  arg'ument  will  stand  thus  :  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and 
repentaricc  of  infants  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  infants  have  not  faith, 
Sec.  ;  therefore  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized.  The  reader  may  dis- 
cern an  agreement,  in  the  parts  of  the  argument,  with  each  other  ;  it 
lias  infants  in  each  part,  as  well  in  the  premises,  as  in  the  conclusion. 
But,  then,  the  fallacy  of  it  is  more  sti-Jkingly  evident  than  before  : 
For  the  error,  which  before  crept  unto  the  middle,  docs  here  stand  in 
froiit  ;  it  is  in  this  proposition,  the  Scriptures  require  faith  and  re- 
pentance of  infants  in  order  to  baptism,  winch  is  not  true  ;  for  infants 
are  never  required  to  repent  or  believe  ii)  order  either  to  Ixiptism  or 
salvation.  Whereas  before,  wlien  it  was  said  the  Scriptures  requii'c 
faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in  order  to  baptism  ;  liut  infants  have 
not  faith,  Sec.  the  error  consisted  in  putting  in  the  vrord  '  infants,' 
who  have  no  conc;ern  at  all  in  the  requirement. 

By  placing  one  thing  in  the  premises,  and  another  in  the  conclu- 
sion, which  is  done  by  the  Baptists,  in  this  argument,  we  may  be  able 
to  evince  any  absurdity,  however  glaring.  This  being  the  manner  of 
the  Baptist  ai'gument,  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  take  oifits  force 
against  infants,  ])Ut  to  make  the  premises  and  conclusion  to  correspond 
with  each  otlier.  That  is,  while  it  continues  to  be  a  sophism,  it 
proves  against  infants  ;  but  it  ceases  to  prove  against  them,  as  soon  as 
it  is  made  a  good  argument,  e.  g.  Faith  aiid  repentance  are  required 
of  adults  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  infants  have  not  these  :  Therefore 
infants  are  not  to  be  baptized.  This  is  nothing  more  than  a  pure 
sophism,  and,  as  such,  it  concludes  against  infants ;  but  all  its  force 
against  infants  is  set  aside  by  making  it  good,  thus:  Faith  and  re- 
pentance are  required  in  adults  in  order  to  baptism  ;  but  some  adults 
liave  not  faith  and  repentance  :  1'herefore  some  adults  are  not  to  be 
baptized,  The  reader  may  see,  that  now  it  is  a  fair  argument,  all  its 
force  against  infants  is  gone. 

Having  said  thus  much  on  the  fallacy  of  thi;?  argument,  I  shall 
only  add  one  specimen  of  its  mcyde  of  operation  ;  andt]:£t  is  a  speci- 
men, in  which  it  will  conclude  two  contrary  ways,  on  one  place  of 
Scripture,  Rom,  ii.  25.  "  For  circum.cision  verily  profiteth,  if  thou 
keep  the  lav/:  but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision 
is  made  uncircumcisioa." 

Now  the  Baptist  argument,  on  the  first  member  of  tliis  text,  v/iil 
Qperate  thus  :  Circumcision  verily  profiteth,  if  tiiou  keep  the  law  ; 
but  infants  could  not  keep  the  law :  Therefore  their  circumcision 
must  be  unprofitable,  that  is,  as  no  circumcision,  a  m^re  nullity  ;  and 
this  refiects  on  the  wisdom  of  God.  But  if  we  form  the  same  argu- 
2nent  on  tiie  other  member,  it  will  be  no  nullity  neither,  for  thus  it 
will  run  :  If  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  tliy  circumcision  is  made 
uncircumcision  :  But  infimts  could  not  break  the  law  ;  therefore  their 
circumcision  could  not  be  made  uncircumcision,  /.  c.  a  nullity.  Such 
is  this  Baptist  argument,  that  it  will  prove  infa'.it  circumcision  IQ  be 


IXFJ.VT  BJPTISM.  is 

^oiiiclhino^  or  notlnng-,  accordinpj  to  that  part  of  the  text  on  Avhicii 
il  is  formed  ;  and  it  is  therefore  evidently  no  more  tluin  a  sophism. 

I  have  endeavored  to  make  the  reader  see,  not  only  tliat  this  ar<j,ii- 
inent  is  fulse,  but  Avherein  that  fallacy  consi:;ts.  Tluit  it  is  false,  ap- 
])eai's  in  tiiis,  that  in  every  instance  it  oppose'5  a  known  truth  ;  it 
(pposes  the  circumcision  of  infants — the  bai)tism  of  Jesns  Christ — 
ti:e  salviition  of  inf.uits — and,  their  temporal  subsistence.  The  natiu'c 
of  the  fallacy  is  the  placin;^-  of  adults  in  the  premises,  and  infants  in 
iheconckision  ;  which  any  person,  Avho  has  the  least  knowledge  of 
tlie  art  of  reasoning,  must  see  instantly  to  be  repugnant  to  the  lav/s 
(A  truth.  If  the  method  I  have  taken  to  show  wherein  the  fault 
tonsists,  should  not  be  familiar  to  any  reader,  it  is  possible  he  may  not 
;  ;>i)rehend  me;  if  so,  I  would  advise  him  to  read  it  rejxjatedly,  and 
uiJi  serious  attention  ;  for  I  am  not  without  hope,  that  even  the  most 
common  capacity,  with  due  attention,  will  cle;iiiy  comprehend  my 
me-iniiiii;.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  no  doubt,  but  many  will  readily 
enter  irito  the  method,  and  see  v/hat  a  fallacious  argument  is  made  use 
of  to  support  an  opinion  I  am  compelled  to  desert. 

Tliese  two  arp;un-ients  beini);  taken  away,  a  Baptist  has  nothing  lef^ 
to  place  at^-air.sl  infant  baptism.  I  have  not  met  with  a  single  jxirson, 
vv  lio,  \vhen  desired  to  produce  the  strongest  argumeuts  against  infant ■>, 
cjuld  advance  any  thing  more  than  what  is  contrancd  in  these  tv/o. 
^V'hilc  1  thought  it  right  ;o  oppose  the  baptism  of  iniants,  I  made  use 
( T  them  against  it,  but  when  they  appeared,  as  they  really  are,  very 
cironcous  and  bad,  I  gave  them  up  ;  and  from  that  time  have  never 
been  able  to  preach  a  baptizing  sermon.  I  saw  that  the  whole  strength 
of  a  Baptist  was  gone. 

By  the  removal  of  these  tv/o  arguments,  thus  much  is  gained  ; 
thiit  wiiatever  can  be  advanced,  on  the  ])art  of  inlar.ts,  will  stand  with  un- 
diminished force.  For  it  will  now  avail  nothing  to  say,  vrith  tht; 
first  argument,  there  is  no  express  law  for  infant  baptism  ;  nor  will  it 
be  of  any  use  to  aiiirm,  according  to  the  second,  that  infaiits  have  no 
f.uth,  no  repentance  :  Because  the  arguments  themselves  being  faila- 
cious,  whatever  may  be  urged  from  them,  v/ill  be  entirely  devoid  oi 
force  against  infant  baptism. 

Having  now  imished  what  I  intended  on  the  arguments,  on  one 
side,  I  proceed  to  those  on  the  other.  I  am  vv'ell  persuaded,  that 
the  Scriptures  cannot  favor  both  sides  ;  and  had  the  arguments  against 
infant  baptism  been  good,  lam  convinced  that  nothing  in  the;  word 
of  God  would  have  given  it  any  countenance.  But  since  the  trutlj 
must  be  either  for  or  againct  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  the  argu- 
ments against  being  futile,  it  is  certain  the  truth  must  lie  on  the  oili- 
er side. 


CHAPTER  II. 


CONTAINING    ARGUMENTS  ON  THE   SIDE  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


Infant  baptism  is  to  be  proved,  in  the  same  way,  as  female  com- 
munion. In  the  case  of  female  communion,  all  the  Baptists  I  have 
ever  conversed  with,  on  that  subject,  make  use  of  inference  and  an- 
alogy ;  and,  though  in  them  it  is  ridiculous,  they  are  not  able  to  prove 
it  in  any  other  way.  And  this  method  is  even  adopted  by  Mr.  Booth, 
as  I  shall  more  plainly  evince  in  another  place  ;  though  glaringly  in- 
consistent v/ith  his  own  principles. 

As  I  am  now  to  advance  proof  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  the 
simple  method  I  mean  to  adopt  v/ill  be  the  following.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  a  fact  acknov/ledged  by  the  ]3aptists  themselves,  that  in- 
fants were  at  an  early  period  constituted  members  of  the  church  of 
God.  In  the  next  place,  I  shall  pi'oduce  proof,  that  they  have  a 
right  to  be  so  now  ;  and  that  the  constitution  of  God  by  which  they 
were  m.ade  members,  has  not  been  altered  to  this  day.  In  the  last 
place,  I  shall  lay  dovm  this  dilemma,  which  will  conclude  the  whole 
business,  namely  :  As  infants  by  a  divine  and  unaltered  constitution 
have  a  right  to  be  received  as  church  members,  they  must  be  receiv- 
ed either  with  baptism  or  without  it.  If  they  are  not  to  be  received 
without  baptism,  then,  the  consequent  is,  that  they  must  be  baptized, 
because  they  must  be  received.  1  nov/  request  the  reader's  attention 
to  each  of  these  in  their  order. 


ARGUMENT  I. 

God  Ims  constituted  in  his  Church  the  membership,  of  infants^  and  admil- 
ted  them  to  it  by  a  religious  rite. 

IN  this  argument  it  is  proper  to  take  notice  of  two  pans. 
I.  The  church-membership  of  infants. — A  church  is  a  society  that 
stands  in  special  relation  to  God,  being  instituted  for  religious  purpos- 
es. When  the  persons  composing  tliis  society  appear  openly  in  such 
relation  to  Crod,  it  is  called  a  visible  church  ;  and  of  such  an  one  I 
now  speak.  The  relation,  between  God  and  this  society,  is  formed 
by  God  himself,  by  declaring  he  is,  and  will  be  their  God.  This  de- 
claration of  God  which  constituted  that  relation,  v/hich  indeed  did 
exist  from  the  beginning,  had  an  equal  regard  to  adults  and  infants  ; 
^'  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  And 
hence  both  young  and  old,  who  had  been  duly  entered,  were  consid- 
ered as  children  of  lire  c-    ciiunt   and  the  kingdom?  that  is,  of  tlie 


JRGUMEjVTS  OjY  the  5IDE  OP,  tjfc.  §5 

church.  The  ri£>iiL  of  circumcision  beiiif;  pcrrormed,  the  circumcised 
was  presented  lo  the  Lord  ;  which  is  the  mode  oT  expression  lo  signiiy 
H  puhiic  enterinj^-  into  church-felloyvship. 

The  case  as  noAv  stated,  is,  I  suppose,  comitioilly  ftdmittcd.  It  iS 
granted  by  Baptists,  who  are  tlie  inoiit  likely  of  any  to  d-.^y  it^  that 
infants  were  members  of  the  Jevvisli  church.  Mr.  Booth  grants  it, 
vol.  ii."  224:  So  docG  Mr.  Kcach,  (iold  refmed,  pag;'i  1 13.  *' That 
''hildren  were  admitted  liiembers  cf  the  Je'.visli  church  is  gfanted.'" 
And  indeed  it  is  not  possible  to  deny  this,  without  denying  that  a-* 
dults  themselves  vvere  members,  which  would  be  tha  same  as  denying; 
that  God  had  a  church  in  the  world.  Infants^  therefore,  \ycre  con- 
stituted  by  God  himseii^  inerabers  of  his  own  visible  church. 

II.  Inllmts,  in  order  to  visible  memberships  were  the  subjects  of  £l 
relig-ious  rite.  That  circumcision  was  a  religious  rite,  is  as  easily 
proved,  as  that  baptisiil  and  the  Lord's  strpper  are  such.  Mr.  Bootli, 
in  this  case,  is  in  a  strait  betwixt  two ;  he  is  not  willinri;  flatly  to  deny 
it,  i>or  yet  can  he  prevail  on  himself  to  r-cknovrkdge  it.  He  is  very' 
tender  upon  the  subject,  as  if  he  sav/  some  formidable  consequence 
lurking  beneath  it;  See  what  he  says,  vol.  ii.  250.  *'  Baptism  is  ail 
appointment  purely  religiousj  and  intended  for  purposes  entirely  spir- 
itual :  B'lt  circumcision,  besides  the  spiritual  instructicn  suggested 
by  it,  was  a  sign  of  carnal  descent,  a  mark  of  national  distinction,  and 
a  token  of  interest  in  thoj^e  temporal  blessing^  that  were  promised  to 
Abraham."  Nov/  can  any  Thing  soul  teH  from  whence  Mr.  B.  had 
fdl  this  r  Was  it  from  tlie  Koi'an,  or  Talmud  ?  To  she^T  he  never  took 
his  notion  from  the  Bible,  I  will  set  the  Bible  against  him^  aiid  him 
against  {l.-^Boottu  It  Vv'as  a  token  of  interest  in  temporal  blessings* 
-^Bibic.  It  v.'as  a  token  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  Abraiiam^ 
lo  be  a  God  to  him  and  his  seed.-^2iC>?//,  It  vras  a  aign  of  carnal  des-< 
cent. — B:blc.  It  v^'as  a  sign  of  circumcision,  L  c.  of  the  heart  and 
spirit. — ^Booth.  It  v/as  a  mark  of  national  distirjclion.'-«r?V'/^*  It 
v»-as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faithir  Nowcompare  Mr.  B.  with 
fact.  Booth.  It  vras  a  token  of  interest  hi  temporal  blessings. — Fact* 
Many  had  the  interest  without  tl>e  tokei>,  and  many  had  the  token 
without  the  interest. — Booth.  It  was  a  mark  of  national  distinction. 
^^^Fact.  Many  other  nations  had  the  same  markv  So  it  v/as  a  dis-* 
tinction  which  did  not  distinguish--^5/:>6;/'^  It  wa^-  a  sign  of  carnal 
descent. — FacL  All  Ahraham's  male  servant  3,-  and  many  proselytes, 
vrere  circumcised.  Either  these  were  descerided  f^om  Abraham,  or 
Mr.  B'y.  sign  was,  as  one  calls  it,  a  sign  of  a  lie.-^See  what  the  loveoT 
hypothesis  can  do  1  Could  any  man  have  given  a  poorer  account  of 
circumcision  than  Mr.  B.  has  done  ? 

But  was  it  not,  after  all,  a  truly  religious  insttlule  ?  ?>Ir.  B.  is 
not  willing  to  deny  this  a-togethcr.  Pie  seems  to  grants  at  least  by  im- 
plication, tiiat  it  V, as  half  a  religious  rite^  *•  IJaplism,"  says  he, 
*'  is  an  appointmerit  purely  religi^ms,  f<jr  purposes  entirely  spiritual." 
By  his  u:?ing  the  words  /mrrly  and  cnfirt-hj  as  applied  to  baptism,  and 
tlien  comparing  it  to  circumcision,  he  seems  to  admit  that  circumcis- 
ion Avas  partly  a  religious  rite.  All  he  will  grant"  in  plain  terms, 
concerning  the  religious  nature  of  this  institute,  is,  that  it  "suggested 
."Spiritual  iiistruction  ;"  Avhich  is  not  peculiar  to  any  rite  eitlier  Jewish 

J) 


36  JRGUMENl^S  O.V  TTHE  SIDE  OF 

OY  Christian.  I  am  sorry  to  see  a  man  of  Mr.  B's.  ability,  trifle  after 
this  sort.  He  certainly  knew  not  wliat  to  make  of  it  ;  he  saw  some- 
thing' in  its  aspect  dreadfuily  formidable  to  his  system,  and  was  afraid 
of  its  appearing  in  that  form,  in  vi^hich  it  is  set  forth  in  the  word  of 
God.  Thcoe  strokes  in  Mr.  B'b.  Book,  and  such  as  these  wliich  I  in- 
tend to  notice,  convince  me  more  than  any  thing  I  have  ever  read,  of 
tlie  fallacy  of  the  Baptists'  scheme. 

Leaving  Mr.  B's.  distorted  account  of  this  ordinance,  we  v/ill  view 
it  as  represented  in  the  word  of  God.  To  see,  then,  whether  it  is  a 
religious  rite,  we  have  only  to  view  it,  in  its  various  relations  to  re- 
ligion ;  and  circumxision  thus  viev/ed  v/ill  appear  to  have  been  of  that 
description,  as  truly  as  baptism,  or  the  Lord's  supper.  Let  it  be  con- 
sidered in  its  institution — in  its  application — in  its  obligation — and 
connexion  with  religious  things. 

1.  In  its  institution.  In  this  view  of  it,  it  was  a  token  of  God's 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  in  which  he  promised  to  be  a  God  un- 
to him,  and  his  seed  after  him.  And  tlien  as  an  appendage,  he  prom- 
ised to  give  him  and  his  seed  the  land  of  Canaan  for  his  temporal  sub- 
sistence. For  earthly  things  are  appendages  to  the  covenant  of  grace, 
they  are  things  added  as  our  Lord  expresses  it,  to  help  a  saint  through 
this  wodd. 

2.  We  may  view  it  farther,  in  its  application,  under  the  threefold 
notion  of  a  token,  a  sign  and  a  seal.  As  a  token  it  is  a  i-atilication  of 
God's  grant  in  covenant,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  As 
a  sign  it  denotes  the  grace  of  Go<l  on  the  heart,  whereby  it  is  ena- 
bled to  love  God,  to  worship  him,  and  to  have  no  confidence  in 
the  flesh.  Deut.  xxx.  6.  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  Phil.  ill.  S.  And  there- 
fore called  a  sign  of  circumcision,  i.  e,  of  the  circumcision  of  the 
heart.'  As  a  seal  it  applies  to  the  nghteousness  of  faith,  i.  e.  the 
righteousnes  of  Christ  by  which  men  are  justified. 

3.  We  may  consider  it,  in  its  connexion.  And  this  is,  with  the 
Scriptures,  Rom.  iii.  2.  "  To  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of 
God."  W^ith  the  promises,  [Rom.  xv.  8,]  "  Now  I  say — that  Jesu» 
Christ  Avas  a  minister  of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God,  to 
confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers."  With  baptism,  CoL 
ii.  11,  12,  wherein  these  two  are  spoken  of  as  standing  on  alevel^with 
each  other,  as  being  each  of  them  of  the  same  religious  kind. 

If  we  view  it  in  its  obligation  we  may  observe,  that  as  it  was  an 
enteiing  into  the  visible  church  of  God,  so  it  bound  the  person  who 
received  it,  to  a  conformity  to  all  other  institutes,  Gal.  iii.  3.  With- 
out this  conformity  it  profited  nothing,  for  where  this  was  wanting,  it 
was  deemed  nullity.  That  rite  therefore  which  obliges  to  a  conformi- 
ty to  religion  must  be  a  ridiculous  rite. 

When,  therefore,  we  consider  this  institute,  in  its  use  and  applica- 
tion, under  all  these  views,  there  can  be  r^o  doubt  of  its  being  a  reli- 
gious institute  ;  because  its  whole  use  and  application  are  so.  And  as 
nothing  more  can  be  said  to  prove  the  religious  nature  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper  ;  a  man  might  as  well  deny  these  to  be  religious  or- 
dinances as  the  other.  And  hence  it  is,  that  Mr.  B's.  conduct  is  the 
more  to  be  admired,  who,  notwithstanding  he  must  have  seen  all 
€bis  in  Scripture,  does,  of  his  own  head  (the  word  of  God  giving 


IXFJXT  BAPTISM.  27 

him  no  authority)  transform  it  into  a  mere  secular,  political  rite.  And 
this  is  done  to  destroy  all  arialoi^y  between  it  and  ba[>tlsm,  for  teai*  that 
analogy  should  prove  the  destruction  of  his  scheme.    . 

Mr.  B.  in  his  preface  says,  non  tali  auxilio^  ?icc  dcfensorlbus  istis. 
This  is  to  intimate  to  the  reader,  that  a  good  cause  does  not  need  a 
bad  defence.  Now,  if  we  are  to  form  a  judgment  of  the  cause  he 
has  undertaken  to  support,  from  the  means  lie  makes  use  of  to  sup- 
port it,  we  cannot  suppose  the  cause  he  has  taken  in  hund^  is  any- 
other  than  a  very  bad  one.  I  question  if  the  most  carnal  Jew,  ihat 
ever  sat  in  the  region  of  darkness,  and  shadow  of  death,  could  have 
given  a  more  frigid,  degrading  account  of  an  institution  of  God  than 
he  has  done.  According  to  him,  it  was  only  a  sign  of  cai'nal  descent 
— a  mark  of  national  distinction — a  token  of  interest  in  temporal  bless- 
ings— it  had  a  political  aspect — it  was  performed  with  political  views 
— and  (not  knowing  very  well  what  to  do  with  it,  he  introduces  a 
learned  word,  and  says)  it  was  adapted  to  an  ecclesiastlco-political 
constitution.  Thus  he.  But  one  thing  he  forgot — he  has  not  given 
all  this  the  sanction  of  the  sacred  text.  Indeed,  if  it  agree  to  any- 
thing in  the  Bible,  it  agrees  best  of  all  to  the  circumcision  of  those 
poor  Shechemites,  who  vrere  first  deceived,  and  then  destroyed  by  the 
sons  of  Jacob.     Gen.  xxxiv. 

These  two  parts  of  the  proposition  being  evinced  ;  namely,  1 .  The 
church  membership  of  infants  ;  and,  2.  Their  admission  to  it  by  a 
religious  rite  ;  the  whole  proposition  w^hich  I  undertake  to  maintain, 
and  to  lay  as  a  ground-work,  from  which  to  conclude  the  baptism  of 
infants,  is  this  ;  God  Ims  constituted  in  his  church  the  membership  of 
infants,  and  has  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  religious  rite.  Before  I  pass 
to  the  next  argument,  I  will  make  a  remark  on  each  mrt. 

I.  From  this  fact,  we  learn  so  much  of  the  mind  of  God,  as  to  be 
able  to  conclude,  that  there  is  nothing,  in  a  state  of  infancy,  incom- 
patible with  church  membership.  The  reason  is  evident  ;  for  had 
there  been  any  thing  unsuitable  in  such  a  practice,  God,  who  is  an 
infinit'jiy  wise  judge  of  decency  and  fitness,  would  never  have  ordain- 
ed it.  This  conduct  of  the  infinitely  wise  God,  and  the  practice  of 
about  two  thousand  years,  stand  in  direct  repugnancy  to  the  weak 
prejudice  of  Baptists  ;  who,  from  the  sentiments  they  have  adopted, 
are  led  to  suppose  that  there  is  nothing  in  nature  more  ridiculous, 
than  the  idea  of  infimts  being  church  members.  This  is  one  instance 
of  human  depravity  ;  whereby  the  weakness  of  man  sets  itself  up 
against  the  wisdom  of  God  :  And  as  this  is  the  more  to  be  admired 
in  those  persons,  who  in  other  respects  are  desirous  of  submitting  to 
the  whole  will  of  God  ;  so  it  serves  to  show,  what  a  very  unhappy 
influence  the  admission  of  an  erroneous  sentiment  may  gain  over  the 
mind. 

II.  It  appears  from  this  part  of  the  divine  conduct,  in  plain  oppo- 
sition to  the  views  of  Baptists,  that  the  ignorance,  and  want  of 
i'liith,  inseparable  from  a  state  of  infancy,  are  no  impediments  to  the 
administration  of  a  religious  ordinance  :  And  this  truth  should  be  the 
more  regarded  by  us,  as  it  stands  supported  by  the  high  authority  of 
God  ;  and  is  as  a  thousand  arguments  against  all  those  pleas  which 
4.re  (k-awn  from  tlie  incapacity  of   infants.     For  while  we  see  tho^..e 


*9  JRG'JMJi^Vl'S  GjY  the  SIDE  CF 

declared  fit  subjects  of  a  relig^ious  ordinance,  who  could  know  nothing 
of  its  nature  or  use  ;  with  what  prudence  cr  piety  can  any  man  pre- 
sume to  affirm,  that  infants  are  incapable  of  such  an  ordinance  ?  But 
if  aiw  one  should  take  so  much  authority  on  himself,  as  to  arbitrate 
p,gainst  the  /visdom  of  Ciod,  he  would  do  ^vcll  to  consider,  that  Gotl 
^§  tru^'j  and  pvery  man  a  liar?  /.  c.  that  judges  differently. 


ARGUMENT  II, 

Qy^^  church  meinherdiiii   of  inftmls   ivas  never  net  a-nde  by  God  or  man  ; 
but  continues  inforce^  Undi^r  the  scmctiQwf  Gvd^  to  the  preseJit  day. 

THE  force  of  thio  and  the  preceding  argument,  taken  tog-ether* 
jinay  be  comprehended  by  any  man  of  common  reasoning;  powers. 
Every  onp  knows,  that  what  was  once  done,  and  never  undone,  mmst 
of  course  remain  the  sam.e  :  And,  tliat  what  was  once  granted,  and 
never  revoked,  must  ne«;ds  continue  as  a  grant.  There  can  be  no 
fallacy  in  all  this,  Thece  arguments,  therefore,  being  fairly  m.aintain- 
ed,  will  carry  us  forward  to  a  dilcmjna  ;  and  that  dilemma  will  bring 
us  home  to  the  conclusion, 

In  good  theory,  the  proof  of  this  argument  should  not  lie  upon  the 
Paedoboptist,  Tor  if  I  aiTirm,  and  prove,  that  God  did  settle  a  cer- 
tain plan  respecting  church  members,  and  another  should  come  and 
jiffirm  that  that  plan  was  now  altered ;  it  should  lie  on  him  to  pro- 
duce his  proof  that  such  an  alteration  has  taken  place  ;  and  the  reason 
is,  that  whatever  God  has  established  should  be  supposed  to  con- 
tinue, though  we  coidd  bring  no  proof  of  its  continuance,  unless  we 
are  plainly  told  that  he  lias  ordered  it  otherwise.  And  then,  since 
there  is  not  a  single  text  in  Scripture  to  prove  that  the  church  mem" 
bership  of  infants  is  annulled,  this  argument  should  remain  in  force  with- 
out  further  proof. — However,  I  will  wave  tl  is  privilege,  v/hich  I  might 
justly  claim,  and  proceed  to  evince  the  argument  I  have  laid  down. 

There  was  only  one  point  of  time,  in  v/hich  it  is  even  supposed  the 
church  membership  of  infants  v/as  set  aside  ;  and  that  was,  when  the 
Gentiles  were  taken  into  a  visible  church  state.  In  tiiat  period  several 
institutions  did  cease,  and  some  new  ones  were  ordained.  Our  only 
question  is,  whether  the  ch\irch  memberslup  of  infants  did  cease  at 
the  sam.e  time,  It  is  evident  that  the  mere  change  or  cessation  of 
institutes  could  work  no  change  uppn  membership,  any  more  tlian  a 
man's  having  liis  clotlies  changed  can  produce  a  change  upon  the 
man.  All  institutes,  whether  typical  or  ratifying,  that  is,  all  insti- 
tutes of  every  kind,  are  to  be  considered,  in  respect  to  church  mem- 
bers, as  means  of  grace,  and  nourishmicnts  for  faith,  respecting  Christ 
the  mediator,  and  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ ;  and  then  a 
change  taking  place  in  these  tilings,  will,  in  itself,  produce  no  miOre 
?ilteration  in  the  members  of  the  church,  than  a  change  in  a  man's 
diet  will  destroy  the  identity  of  the  man. 

I  am  now  to  prove  that  the  church  memibership  of  infants,  ^  hicli 
Jiaving  been  crdaiuedof  God,  was  never  annulled,  but  carried  forwai^i 


IXFJjXT  baptism.  2? 

jiilo  the  Gentile  church  ;  and  so  consequently  is  in  force  at  the  pres- 
ent time.     And  this  I  shall  proceed  to  do, 

From  Scripture  viev/s  of  God'r,  dispensation  towards  the  Gentiles. , 

Much  lifjht  might  be  thrown  upon  this  subject,  by  considerinf:^  those 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  which  relate  to  the  culliiig-  in  of  the 
Gentiles.  This  Dr.  Williams  has  done  to  great  advantage  :  but  my 
design  being  brevity,  I  shall  conilne  myself  to  passages  on  that  subject 
in  the  New  Testament. 

I.  Matt.  xxi.  43.  "Therefore  I  say  ur.to  you,  the  kingdom  of 
God  shall  be  taken  from  you  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the 
fruits  thereof." 

The  plain  meaning  of  this  passage  is,  tl;at  as  in  times  past,  the 
Church  of  God,  which  is  his  kinp;dom,  was  limited  to  Judea  ;  so, 
in  future  he  would  ha,ve  a  church  in  the  Gentile  world.  The  taking 
of  the  kingdom  from  the  Jews,  and  giving  it  to  the  Gentiles,  de- 
notes, 

1.  The  ceasing  of  a  re^^-ular  church  state  among  the  Jews.  And 
this  actually  took  place,  by  the  dcLtruction  of  seme,  and  the  disper- 
sion of  others,  who  did  not  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  sent  of 
jGcd ;  while  those  who  did  receive  him,  Avere  at  length  removed 
from  Judea,  and  by  degrees  lost  the  name  of  Jew,  in  that  of  Christian, 
Rom.  xi.  12. 

2.  The  setting  up  of  a  regular  church  state  among  the  Gentiles. 
This,  as  the  cessation  of  the  clmrch  among  the  Jews,  was  gradually 
brought  about.  For  the  Gentiles  who  camie  over  to  Christ,  joining 
themselves  to  the  Jewish  church,  became  in  tim-e  the  larger  part. 
So  that  by  the  increase  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  breaking  oif  of  the 
wortJi.Iess  branches  anipng  the  Jev^s,  nothing  remained  but  an  entire 
jG entile  church, 

3.  The  sameness  of  the  church  state  among  the  Gentiles,  v,ith 
that  among  the  Jev/s.  For  taking  av/ay  and  giving  cannot  import  a 
change  in  the  thing  taken  and  given  ;  but  a  transfer,  the  passing  of 
a  thing  from  one  to  the  other.  The  kingdom  given  to  the  Gentiles 
v»as  tne  same  that  was  taken  from  the  Jevrs  :  For  all  that  was  taken 
from  the  Jevrs  was  given  to  the  Gentiles.  Now,  if  we  would  know 
what  was  to  be  tlie  church  state  among  the  Gentiles,  we  have  only 
to  learn  v/hat  it  had  been  among  tlie  Jews :  For  in  both  cases  the 
church  state  was  the  same.  And  then,  as  it  has  before  been  proved, 
and  admitted  by  Baptists,  that  the  church  ^'ate  among  the  Jews  con- 
sisted in  the  membership  of  adults  and  infants,  the  church  state 
among  the  Gentiles  must  consist  of  adults  and  infants  too  :  Because 
the  same  that  was  taken  from  the  Jews  was  given  to  the  G  entiles - 
And  so  it  apfjears  from  God's  dispensation  to  the  Gentiles,  that  the 
cliinch  membership  of  infants  v/as  not  set  aside. — I  will  anticipate 
two  objections  in  this  place,  which  may  be  urged  on  each  of  the  pas- 
sages I  shall  alledge. 

1 .  It  may  be  said,  tliat  in  this  way  of  viewing  the  subject,  all  the 
ordinances  and  rituals  of  tlie  Jevvish  churcii  must  be  adopted  by  the 
Gentile.  To  this  I  ansv/er,  that  these  things  were  not  of  the  essence 
of  a  church  state  ;  but  oijy  m.eans  of  grace,  and  helps  to  faith  for  the 
time  being.     Neither  were  these  taken  and  given,  but  P4inuUt*d ;  they 


3®  JRGUMEjYTS  O.Y  THE  SIDE  OF 

-w'ere  not  transferred  but  abolished.  Rituals  are  to  a  church,  as  diet 
or  ornament  are  to  a  man ;  let  the  diet  be  changed,  and  the  orna- 
tnents  removed,  the  essence  of  the  man  will  be  still  the  same.  So 
tlie  state  and  essence  of  the  church  of  God,  before  these  rituals  were 
ordained,  and  wJjile  they  were  in  force,  and  alter  their  abolition,  was, 
and  is,  and  must  be  the  same.  This  will  be  handled  more  fully  in 
smother  place. 

2.  If  any  should  say,  it  does  not  appear  that  women  in  the  Jewish 
chuiTh  were  admitted  to  an  initiatin<^  right ;  and  if  so,  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  the  present  church  and  the  Jewish  :  I  observe  in  an- 
swer, tJiat  this  difference  does  not  imply  a  removing  or  changing  of 
-any  thing  ;  but  merely  that  of  adding.  That  whereas  the  church 
state  among  the  Jews  included  males  both  adult  and  infant ;  so  to  the 
Gentile  chiu'ch,  together  with  these,  there  is,  by  the  express  order  of 
God,  the  superaddition  of  females. 

I  would  observe  further,  that  the  addition  of  females  seems  to  mc 
to  be  very  favorable  to  the  argument  I  am  upon  ;  because  it  is  a  new 
provision  aimexed  to  an  old  law.  Now  an  alteration  made  in  a  law, 
gives  an  addition  firmness  to  all  those  parts  which  are  not  altered. 
And  the  reason  is,  it  supposes  that  all  the  unaltered  pails  are  perfectly 
agreeable  to  the  legislator's  mind.  And  so  v.hen  the  Lord  expressly 
took  away  the  partition  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  male  and  fe^ 
male  ;  and  passed  over  infants  without  making  the  least  alteration  in 
their  case,  he  thereby  gave  a  superadded  confirmation,  that  the  church 
membership  of  infants,  which  had  been  before  established,  was  in 
every  respect  agreeable  to  his  will. 

II.  Rom.  xi.  23,  24.  "And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in 
unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  in  again :  For  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in 
again.  For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree,  which  is  wild  by 
nature,  and  wert  grafted  contrary  to  nature  into  a  good  olive  tree  ;  how- 
much  more  shall  these  which  be  the  natural  branches,  be  grafted  into 
their  ov/n  olive  tree  ?'* 

1.  The  olive  tree  is  to  denote  a  visible  church  state.  2.  The 
Jews  are  said  to  be  natural  branches,  because  they  descended  from> 
Abraham,  to  whom  the  promise  was  made,  "  I  will  be  a  God  unto 
thee  and  to  thy  seed."  3.  The  Gentiles  were  brought  into  the 
same  church  state,  irom  wliich  the  Jews  were  broken  off.  4.  Tlie 
Apostle  suggesteth,  that  the  Jews  will  again  be  grafted  into  their 
own  olive  tree.  From  whence,  with  a  view  to  my  purpose,  I  would 
notice, 

1.  The  future  state  of  the  Jews,  who,  he  says,  if  they  abide  not 
in  unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  in  again.  Grafting  m  again  is  the  brhig- 
ing  of  a  person  or  thing  into  the  same  condition  in  which  it  was  be- 
fore. So  the  grafting  in  again  of  the  Jews,  is  putting  them  into  the 
same  church  state  in  which  they  were  lx;fore  they  were  broken  off. 
What  was  their  church  state  before  they  were  broken  off?  1  answer, 
as  before  proved,  that  it  consisted  of  the  memliership  of  adults  and 
infants.  Why  then,  if  it  before  consisted  of  adults  and  infants,  it  will 
again  consist  of  the  same  :  Because  grafting  in  again  is  the  placing  of 
persons  so  grafted,  in  their  former  state.  And  that  is  in  flict  the 
same  state,   in  A^hich  they  would  have  continued,  if  they  had  never 


LVFJ.y  T  hAP  TISM.  S 1 

been  broken  off.  That  Is,  if  it  had  not  been  for  their  unbelief,  (for 
which  they  were  cut  off)  they  would  have  continued,  both  they  and 
their  influits,  as  members  of  the  church  of  God.  So  when  it  shall 
please  God  to  o-ive  them  faith,  tliey  will  be  reinstated,  /.  e.  they  and 
their  infants  will  be  members  of  the  Church  of  God  again. 

In  compliance  with  this  idea,  I  will  just  turn  aside  to  observe,  that, 
it  is  natural  for  one  error  to  lead  on  to  another  ;  and  that  this  is  not 
more  evident  in  any,  than  it  is  in  the  Baptists.  They  grant  that  in- 
fants M^ere  members  of  the  Jev/ish  church  ;  and  this  from  them  is  a 
very  considerable  concession.  But  a  concession  like  this,  leads  to  a 
consequence  horribly  alarming  to  their  system.  For  if  infants  were 
ouce  members  of  the  church  of  God  ;  then,  it  is  evident,  they  were 
capable  of  such  membership  ;  and  then  the  question  will  l>e,  when 
did  they  cease  to  be  members  ?  and  why  are  they  not  so  now  ? 

To  remove  this  difficulty,  the  Baptists  have  recourse  to  this  expe- 
dient. For  as  they  cannot  show  trom  any  place  of  Scripture,  tJiat 
infants  are  expressly  set  aside  from  church  membership  ;  they  fall  to 
degrading  the  Jewish  church,  its  membership  and  institutions  :  And 
when  they  have  done,  there  is  hardly  any  church  or  institution  left. 
What  was  the  Jev/ish  church  ?  IMr.  Booth,  vol.  ii.  2  j2.  "  It  was  an 
ecclesiastico-political  constitution."  What  was  the  membership  of 
it  ?  Mr.  B.  page  251.  "  An  obedient  subject  of  their  civil  govern- 
nient,"  and  a  complete  member  of  their  church  state,  were  the  same 
thing."  What  was  the  church  institute  ?  Mr.  B.  page  250,  Sec.  "  It 
was  a  sign  of  carnal  descent,  a  mark  of  national  distinction,  it  had  a 
political  as]3ect,  and  was  performed  with  political  views."  I  wish  I 
had  a  good  casuist  at  my  elbow,  to  explain  what  kind  of  church  this 
could  be.  For  had  I  been  Mr.  B.  I  would,  to  save  trouble,  have  fair- 
ly denied  that  it  was  any  church  at  all.  And  to  say  the  truth  of  hini, 
he  has  fairly  done  all  tliis. 

Now,  it  is  a  desperate  cause,  that  leads  a  man  to  fr-ll  upon  the  very 
church  of  God.  But  this  is  done  to  shew  that  there  is  so  great  a  dif- 
ference betvreen  the  church  that  now  is,  and  that  ^vLich  once  was,  (or 
rather  never  was)  that  though  infants  were  members  of  the  one,  they 
have  no  right,  no  capacity,  to  be  members  of  the  other. 

This  is  one  shift  to  ward  off  the  consequence  I  have  mentioned. 
But  now  we  want  another  shift,  to  escape  the  consequence  that  is 
yet  to  come.  "  And  they,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall 
be  grafted  in  again."  Grafting  in  again  is  the  bringing  of  persons 
or  things  into  th.eir  fonner  condition.  Now,  if  the  former  Jewish 
cliurch  stiite  was  all  political,  as  Mr.  B.  will  have  it  ;  then  the  conse- 
quent will  be,  that  when  the  Jews  shall  confess  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  believe  with  their  heart,  that  God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  kc. 
and  shall  in  consequence  be  reingrafted  into  their  own  olive  tree  ;  thev 
>vill  be  all  political  again  !  A  mere  ecclesiastico-political  constitution  ! 
wherein  an  obedierjt  subject  of  civil  government,  and  a  complete  mem- 
ber of  a  church,  will  be  the  same  thing  ! — Well,  when  this  shall  lalvc 
place,  infant  clmrch  membership  may  come  about  again. 

But  I  retiun  from  this  digression  to  notice, 

2.  The  present  state  of  the  Gentiles.  It  appears  from  tlie  text 
that  the  church  8tat(^.  isj  the  same  to  the  Gentiles,  ws  it  liadbeen  to  the 


32  jiRGUMEXTS  OjY  THE  SIDE  OF 

Jews,  and  as  it  Vvill  be  to  the  Jews,  in  some  future  period,  when  i^ 
shall  please  God  to  i^raft  them  in  again.  And  the  reason  of  this  is, 
because  each  in  their  turn  beloni^  to  the  same  olive  tree,  /.  e.  the  visi-* 
ble  cliurch  state.  And  therefore,  as  iiitantsmade  a  part  of  the  church 
before  the  Jews  were  cut  off,  and  will  again  make  a  part,  when  they 
shall  be  reingrafted  ;  they  must  likewise  make  a  part  amon;^  me  Gen-' 
tiles  :  Because  the  same  olive  tree  i.  c.  church  state,  must  confer  the 
same  privilege"  on  all  who  shall  be  in  it. 

This  truth  will  receive  additional  confirmation,  and  the  contrary 
error  v/ill  be  more  evident,  if  we  consider,  that  since  infants  were  once 
members  among  the  Jews  ;  and  when  their  reiugrafting  shall  take 
place,  will  be  so  again;  so,  if  among  the  Gentiles  they  are  deemed 
improper  subjects  of  membership,  and,  in  consequence  of  that,  are 
universally  rejected,  two  things  will  foilov/  :  1.  There  will  be,  in  the 
m.ean  time,  a  very  unhandsome  schism  in  the  ecclesiastical  chain.  For 
though  infants  were  found  members  in  the  first  ages  of  the  churchj 
and  will  be  so  in  the  last,  there  will  be  none  to  fiil  up  the  middle. 
And,  2.  There  vi^ill  also  be,  in  future  time,  a  very  unpleasant  dis- 
cordancy. For  when  the  Jews  shall  be  grafted  in  again,  they  will 
adopt  their  old  practice  of  receiving  infants  to  membership  ;  while  the 
Gentiles,  denying  they  have  any  such  right,  will  persist  in  shutting 
them  out  ;  and  all  this,  as  some  suppose,  in  the  spiritual  reign  cf 
Christ. 

III.  Rom.  xi.  \7i  "  And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off, 
and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  and 
with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree  ;  boast 
not  thyself  against  the  branches." 

1.  The  olive  trecj  as  before  noted,  is  the  visible  church  state. 
2.  The  branches  are  members  of  the  visible  church.  3.  Some  of 
these  were  broken  off,  and  some  remained.  4.  The  Gentiles  who 
Were  called  of  God,  were  united  to  this  remnant,  for  they  were  graft- 
ed in  among  them.  From  this  viev/  of  the  passage  I  draw  these  three 
conclusions  : 

1.  That  there  was  no  discontinuance  of  the  ancient  church  state  ; 
In  its  essence,  it  remained  the  same  £^3  it  had  always  been.  That  this 
is  a  true  conclusion  appears  from  hence  ;  the  text  informs  us  tliat 
some  of  the  branches  '..ere  b.-oken  off ;  and  if  only  some,  then  not 
all  ;  and  that  remnant,  continuiiig  in  their  former  state,  constituted 
tlie  still  existhig  church  of  God.  And  then  it  follows,  that  as  the 
church  state  continued  as  before,  the  memi>ership  of  infants  must  like- 
Wise  continue  :  Because  the  membership  cf  iniants  was  a  part  of  that 
church  state.  And  this  is  the  reason,  thai  no  new  regulation,  respect- 
ing infants,  was  made,  or  was  necessary  to  be  made  ;  for  all,  who 
knew  Vk'hat  God  had  ordained  respecthig  membersliip,  knew  very  well 
what  to  do  vviih  their  inliints,  withoiit  any  farther  information  on  that 
subject.  This  is  the  first  conclusion,  \iz.  that  the  ancient  church 
state  vv^as  net  dissolved  v,  hen  the  Gentiles  Vf  ere  called  in. — And  hence 
it  follows, 

2.  That  the  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles  did  not  constitute  a  nev/ 
church.  This  passage  informs  us,  that  Avhen  the  Gentiles  were  called 
in,  they  became  members  of  the  church  ah-eady  constituted  j  "  They 


IXFJM  T  BAP TIS3L  .33 

w6re  graued  la  aiTiong  them,"  and  so  become  one  body,-  one  fold  ; 
that  "  with  them  tliey  mig^ht  partake  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  tha 
Olive  tree."  The  firr.t  Gentiles  of  whose  caUing  we  read,  are  caid  to 
have  been  added  to  the  church  }  but  there  w^s  no  church  exiith)gtt> 
which  they  could  be  added,  but  the  ancient  Jewish  church,  of  w):iich 
all  the  Apostles  and  disciples  of  o\u^  Lord  were  members.  If  the; 
Gentiles,  tlicefore,  were  added  to  the  old  church,  oi*,  as  the  text  has 
it,  were  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them  did  partake  of  the  root 
and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree  ;  then  it  is  evident,  that  the  anciert 
church  continued  to  exist,  and  no  new  one  was  fcjrmed  at  t'le  calling  in 
of  the  Gentiles.     And  then  I  conclude, 

3.  Thnt  infants  were  in  a  state  of  membership,  jn  that  very  church 
to  which  the  Gentiles  were  joined,  And  this  must  certainly  be  true  ; 
because  they  were  grafted  into  that  clnirch,  ^f  which  infants  are,  by 
the  Baptists  themselves,  granted  to  have  been  members.  Andthen^ 
it  is  plain  that  infants  made  a  part  of  that  church,  c-AW.d  by  some 
the  Gospel  church,  tjie  pure  churcii  cf  primitive  apostolic  times. 
This  conclusion  must  needs  be  admitted,  unless  any  one  will  affirm, 
that  the  ancient  church  state  was  entirely  dissolved  ;  or  else,  that  the 
Gentiles  were  not  united  to  this  ancient  church.  And  to  affirm 
either  of  these,  will  be  to  afiirm  against  the  word  of  God  in  general, 
and  this  text  in  particular.  And  herein  the  cause  of  the  Baptists  is 
ruined  bot'n  M^ays  ;  for  if  they  maintain,  that  the  old  church  was 
dissolved,  and  the  Gentiles  formed  into  a  new  one,  their  cause  is 
ruined,  l»y  maintaining  against  the  word  of  God,  But  if  they  grant 
that  the  Jewish  church  continued,  and  that  the  Gentiles  were  grafted 
in  among  them,  wliich  is  the  real  truth  ;  then  their  cause  is  ruined 
that  vray.  For  then,  as  infants  were  in  church  fellowship,  in  what  is 
called  the  primitive  apostolic  church.,  -it  foHov/s,  that  those  societies, 
who  admit  inf[U)ts  to  fellowship,  act  agreeable  to  the  apostolic  pattern  ; 
and  consequently  all  those  societies,  v/ho  refuse  to  admit  them,  are 
in  an  error. 

IV.  Eph.  ii.  14.  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  bdth  on^, 
and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us." 

1.  The  terms  [both  and  us]  in  this  place,  mean  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles. 2.  A  partition  is  that  which  separates  one  society  or  family 
from  another.  3.  It  is  said  to  have  been  broken  dov/n,  by  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  called  o  ir  pea::e,  because  he  made  peace,  by  the  blood 
of  his  cross.  4.  The  breaking  dov/n  of  a  partition  wall,  brings  the 
two  societies^  or  families,  into  one. — From  this  passage,  the  vei'y  same 
conclusions  must  be  drawn,  as  from  the  precediujj- ; 

\i  That  the  Jewish  church  continued  as  before,  and  w?.s  net  dissolv- 
ed at  the  calling  in  of  the  C.ientile:-. ;  and  the  reason  is,  the  taking  down 
of  a  paHition  implies  no  *:iis30iUth)nGrany  society. 

2.  That  the  Gentiles  were  not  formed  into  a  newcliuich  :  Recause 
the  brepking  down  of  a  partition  united  them  to  the  Jewish  church, 
and  "  made  both  one." 

3.  The  infaP-ts  were  in  actual  membership,  in  that  church  to  which 
the  Gentiles  were  united  :  Because  adults  and  infants  being  in  fellow- 
ship auiong  the  Jews,  the  removal  of  tiie  partition  brought  adults 
and  infants  hito  unljn  wltii  the    Gentiles. — Aiid  thtjn,   the   point  is 

Z 


34  jrgumejXTs  o?r  the  side  of 

ckarly  gained,  namely,  that  infants  hold  the  same  place  among  the 
Gentiles  as  they  heM  before  among  the  Jews. 

I  again  affirm,  that  the  point  is  evidently  carried,  unless  one  of 
these  tliree  things  can  be  maintained  :  I.  That  God  excluded  infants 
before  the  partition  was  taken  do^Mi ;  or,  2.  at  the  time  it  was  taken 
dov/n  ;  or,  3.  at  some  time  after.  For  if  one  or  other  of  these  can- 
not be  supported,  then  infants  retain  their  right  to  church  member- 
ship to  this  day. — .Can  any  one  maintain  the  first  ;  that  God  exclud- 
ed infants  before  the  partition  wall  Avas  broken  down  ? — Upon  what 
period  will  he  fix  ? — And  by  what  scripture  will  he  support  it  ? — 
Will  any  one  affirm  the  third  ;  that  God  excluded  them  after  the 
partition  was  taken  down  ? — I  suppose  not.  For  that  would  be 
granting  that  the  Gentiles  continued  sometime,  i.  e.  till  the  exclusion 
tooli  place  in  fellowship,  in  that  church  in  which  infants  were  mem- 
bers. And  then,  I  might  ask  again,  in  what  time  did  the  expulsion 
take  place  ?  And  where  is  it  recorded  in  the  word  of  God  ? — But  I 
suppose,  that  he  who  contends  for  such  an  exclusion,  will  affirm  the 
second  ;  that  infants  v/ere  excluded  at  the  time  the  partition  wall  was 
broken  down.  If  so,  I  ask,  who  did  exclude  them  ?  And  how  was 
it  done  ?  It  could  not  be  done  by  the  mere  taking  down  of  the  par- 
tition wall ;  for  the  taking  down  the  partition  unites  those  who  before 
Avere  separate,  but  does  not  exclude  any. 

But  if  they  were  excluded,  it  must  be  done  either  expressly  or  im- 
plicitly. The  first  is  not  true  ;  for  there  is  no  express  exclusion  of 
infants  in  all  the  Scriptures.  And  the  second  "will  not  do  for  a  Bap- 
tist ;  for,  as  he  will  not  admit  implicit  proof  on  the  side  of  infants, 
so  neither  can  he  urge  implicit  proof  against  them. — But  let  him  take 
the  advantage  of  implication  ;  and  say,  that  infants  are  excluded 
from  church  mem.bership,  by  all  those  places  which  require  faith  and 
repentance,  &;c.  in  order  to  baptism.  To  this  I  reply,  that  these 
places  of  Scripture  can  no  more  exclude  infants  from  membership, 
than  they  exclude  them  from  glory.  And  the  fallacy  of  all  this  has 
been  already  fully  evinced,  when  the  second  argument  against  infant 
baptism  was  considered  :  And  to  that  part,  for  his  satisfaction,  I  re- 
fer the  reader. — .If  then  they  were  not  excluded  before  the  partition 
was  taken  down,  nor  at  the  time,  nor  at  any  time  since,  they  were 
not  excluded  at  all.  And  then  the  consequence  will  be,  that  infants, 
according  to  the  will  of  God,  are  possessed  of  a  right  to  church-fel- 
lov/ship  under  the  present  dispensation,  and  to  the  present  day. 

By  these  four  passages,  all  relating  to  God's  dispensation  towards 
the  Gentiles,  it  appears,  that  the  church  membership  of  infants  was 
left  undisturbed,  and  was  carried  forward  into  the  Gentile  church  ; 
where  it  continues  still  the  same  as  when  first  instituted.  And  the 
importance  of  this  fact,  in  the  present  enquiry,  is  so  very  considera- 
ble, that  whoever  admits  it,  must  be  compelled  to  admit  the  right  of 
infanty  to  baptism,  as  a  necessary  consequence.  Now,  that  God  did 
ordain  their  church  membership  has  already  been  evinced,  and  grant- 
ed by  Bapthits  ;  and  that  to  the  present  day,  it  has  never  been  annul- 
led, is  what  I  am  engaged  to  prove.  I  will,  therefore,  in  addition 
to  these  four  scriptures,  which  of  themselves  clearly  prove  the  fact, 
bring  forwai-d  a  variety  of  evidence,  which  serve  to  corroborate  this 
important  truth. 


I^'FJ^rT  baptism.  ss 

1 .  There  is  in  the  New  Testament  no  law  whatever  to  set  aside  the 
primitive  right  of  infants  to  church  membership. 

If  a  law  could  be  found,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  repeal  that 
which  had  been  established  in  the  Old,  I  grant  freely,  that  all  that 
has  been  said  on  the  four  places  of  scripture,  would  signify  nothing. 
But  if  no  such  law  exist,  the  reasoning  on  the  preceding  passages  will 
not  only  remain  untouched,  but  will  acquire  a  livelier  force  from  that 
very  fact. — I  need  not  prove  to  a  Baptist,  that  the  New  Testament 
contains  no  law  by  which  infant  membership  is  prohibited  ;  he  readily 
grants  it ;  but  adds  in  reply,  that  there  was  no  necessity  that  such  a 
law  should  be  framed.     Let  us  examine  the  thought. 

If  indeed  nothing  had  been  done  respecting  infa.nts,  tliis  answer 
would  have  been  a  good  one  ;  but  when  the  church  membership  of 
infants  is  considered  as  an  ancient  establishment,  the  answer  is  nothing 
to  the  purpose.  For  as  the  case  in  reality  stood,  the  want  of  a  law 
to  set  aside  infant  membership,  left  it  in  its  original  state,  to  continue 
dov/n  to  the  end  of  time.  And  how  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  For  who 
in  this  world  Vvas  to  alter  it  ?  It  came  do^\^l  to  Gentile  times,  in  all  the 
force  an  establishment  can  be  supposed  to  have,  or  need  to  have,  in 
order  to  its  continuance.  It  had  the  precept  of  God — It  had  the  par- 
tiality of  parents — It  had  the  practice  of  near  two  thousand  years. 
If  such  an  institution  as  this  needed  no  law  to  set  it  aside,  which  is 
what  the  Baptists  atlirm  ;  the  true  reason  must  be,  because  it  was  not 
the  design  of  God  it  should  be  set  aside.  And  what  could  have  been 
a  greater  proof  of  the  design  of  God  to  perpetuate  it,  than  taking 
no  measures  to  stop  its  progress  ?  So  that  he,  who  grants  that  no 
such  law  was  made,  does  in  effect  admit,  that  it  is  now  a  standing  or- 
dinance in  the  church  of  God  to  receive  infants  to  membership.  And 
then  he  must  grant  too,  that  they  should  be  baptized  ;  because  there 
is  no  other  way  of  receiving  them. 

But  though  a  Baptist  admits  there  is  no  express  law  against  their 
membership  and  baptism  ;  yet  he  affirms  that  the  requirement  of  faith 
and  repentance  does  of  itself  exclude  infants.  This  is  the  purport 
of  the  Baptist's  second  argument  against  infants,  which  I  have  prov- 
ed to  be  a  mere  sophism.  For  when  faith  and  repentance  are  requir- 
ed, in  order  either  to  baptism  or  salvation  ;  a  very  easy  distinction 
will  make  it  plain,  that  infants  are  not  excluded  in  either  case.  And 
this  distinction  is  easy  and  obvious  to  every  person. 

1 .  It  was  a  very  easy  one  to  a  Jew.  For  while  he  kne\y  that  in- 
fants w^ere  received  into  the  church  by  circumcision,  he  likewise  knew 
that  every  adult  Avho  was  circumcised,  put  himself  under  immediate 
obligation  to  confess  his  sins,  to  bring  his  sacrifice,  and  to  conform  to 
all  the  laws  of  that  church.  He  was  very  sensible  an  infant  could 
not  do  this  ;  and  yet  he  saw  it  right  to  circumcise  the  infant.  So 
when  he  heard  of  faith,  and  repentance,  and  confession  of  sin,  respect- 
mg  baptism,  as  a  medium  of  entering  into  the  church  ;  he  had  noth- 
ing to  do,  but  to  use  the  same  distinction,  and  all  would  be  plain 
and  easy  as  before. 

2.  The  distinction  is  easy  to  a  Pxdobaptist.  For  he  knows,  that 
if  the  person  be  an  adult,  he  must  discover  a  disposition  suited  to  the 
nature  and  design  of  tJie  ordinance  ;  but  he  knows,  at  the  same  tira-c;, 


56  jlRGUME.YTS  OjV  THE  SIDE  OF 

that  this  vras  never  designed  to  effect  an  infant,  and  that  it  can  be  no 
bar  to  his  baptism,  or  blessedness. 

3.  This  distinction  is  easy  to  a  Baptist.  For  notwithstanding-  he 
is  well  persuaded,  that  he  who  believeth  not  shall  not  be  saved  ;  yet 
lie  knows  an  ii^fant  may  be  saved,  though  an  infant  do  not  believe. 
All  this  to  him  is  easy  and  natural,  and  nothing  in  the  world  more 
plain.  If  this  be  so  easy  a  distinction,  it  may  be  asked,  why  cannot  a 
Baptist  carry  it  to  baptism  us  well  as  to  any  thing  else  ?  I  answer,  lie 
can  if  he  please  ;  for  it  arises  from  no  defect  of  understanding  that 
'i\G  does  no;  do  it  ;— rbut  it  is  a.n  unpleasant  thing  to  employ  ja  distincr 
tion,  so  as  to  destroy  one's  own  sentiments. 

In  thort,  it  is  only  considering,  that  an  infant  is  not  an  adult,  and 
that  an  adult  is  not  an  infant,  than  which  notliing  can  i?e  more  easy  j 
an4  then  the  requirement  of  faith  and  repentance  is  no  more  a  law 
against  the  nietnbership  and  baptism  of  infants,  than  it  it  agaiitst  their 
salvation.- — All  I  meant  here  was  to  ailirm  that  there  is  ro  law,  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  over-rule  the  church  membersliip  of  infants  ;  and 
this  is  a  corroborntinp;  evidence,  that  their  membership,  which  had 
been  divinely  instituted,  continues  the  same  down  to  the  present  time. 

2.  The  Jews,  at  large,  had  no  apprehension  cf  the  exclusion  cf 
infants  ;  they  neither  oi)pose  nor  approve,  which  tliey  doubtless 
would  have  done,  if  j^uch  ah  exclusion  had  taken  place. 

This  is  a  circumstance  which  merits  particular  attention,  and  has 
no  small  iiiflucnce  on  the  present  question.  For  as  every  material 
alterafion  in  old  customs  is  apt  to  stir  up  some  opposition  ;  so,  had 
such  a  change  as  this  been  introduced,  by  which  the  infant  ofEf.pring 
V/'ould  have  been  put  baclj^  from  their  former  place  in  tlie  church  of 
God,  it  must  have  furnished  occasion  to  a  variety  of  animadversions  : 
Some,  perhaps,  might  have  been  for  it,  while  many  would  have  cp- 
i^csed  the  new  plan.  That  this  would  have  happened  had  such  a  rev- 
olution taken  place,  will  appear  more  certain,  if  we  consider  the  na- 
ture of  such  a  change,  and  the  persons  who  would  have  lelt  themselves 
iiurt  by  its  introduction. 

•1.  As  to  the  change  itself,  it  had  a  tendancy  to  affect  in  a  very 
sensible  part.  And  this  is  a  clear  case,  whether  we  consider — the 
tencjer  age  of  the  subjects — or  their  number — or  the  privilege  to 
which  they  were  admitted — or  the  length  of  time  through  which  the 
practice  had  been  carried — or  lastly,  the  divine  authority  which  gave 
rise  to  that  practice,  Flere  is  a  practice  of  two  thousand  years  standi 
ing. — The  privilege  vras  that  of  admitting  infants  to  membership  in 
the  church  of  God — these  iniants  formed  a  number  in  Israel  exceed- 
ingly great.— And  this  practice  did  not  take  its  rise  from  some  dark 
verbal  or  written  tradition  ;  but  stood  supported  by  the  lively  oracles 
of  God.  Such  was  the  custom  which  the  Baptists  suppose  was  an- 
nulled about  this  time. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  take  into  consideration  the  character 
pf  those  persons  among  whom  this  custom  had  prevailed,  and  among 
whom  it  is  supposed  to  have  ceased,  we  shall  have  sufficient  reason  to 
ihink  it  impossible  that  a  custom  of  this  nature  should  be  abrogated, 
and  they  not  oppose  a  single  word.  As  to  their  character,  it  is  cer- 
tain, that,  a  few  only  excepted,  they  \vt;re  upon  the  whole  the  deadly 


iXFAXT  BAPTISM.  5?r 

^nernies  of  Christ  and  liie  doctrine.  They  ^vere  strongly  attached  to 
the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  reli:^ion.  They  would  wran^ie  for  a  rite^ 
,cjuarrel  for  a  last,  and  almost  fight  for  a  new  moon.  Every  one  knows 
what  disturbance  they  mad.^  in  the  church  of  God,  about  such  things 
as  these. 

Now  is  it  possible,  that  such  a  change  could  be  brought  about,  and 
among  such  a  people,  in  a  manner  so  still  and  silent,  that  in  all  the  New 
Testament  we  do  not  read,  that  tliey  ever  said  a  word  about  it,  for  or 
against  ?  No  priest  nor  publican  ;  no  pharisee,  lawyer,  ci'  libertine  ; 
neither  pious  nor  profane,  neither  zealous,  moderate,  or  lukc-warm,  in 
all  :he  !and  of  Israel,  oppose  a  single  sentence,  or  ask  a  reason  why. — . 
But  tince  this  must  have  been  a  change  so  remarkable  ;  and  they,  a- 
mong -"vhom  it  is  supposed  to  have  happened,  not  the  most- modest ; 
iiov/  came  they  to  be  so  silent,  so  shy  ?  What  m.ade  them  so  passive, 
so  p'2ace-?ble,  s^o  complying  ?  Nothing, — They  were  neither  comply- 
ing, passive,  nor  peaceable,  nor  slow  to  speak,  nor  sIoav  to  wrath,  Avhen 
any  old  foims  were  invaded ;  but  they  were  very  much  so  about  the 
change  in  question  :  And  the  tnie  reason  of  it  is,  it  never  took  place, 
r— There  is  another  evidence,  that  the  church  membership  of  infants 
was  never  annulled  by  God  or  man  ;  and  that  is  this  : 

o.  Our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  take  special  notice  of  infants,  and> 
instead  of  excluding  them,  they  speak  of  them  as  still  possessing  a 
right  to  membership  in  the  church  of  God. 

The  notice  taken  of  infants,  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  I  call 
special ;  because  it  is  not  such  as  God  takes  of  his  creatures  in  a  Avay 
of  common  providence  ;  as  the  giving  of  food  to  a  stranger,  the  satis- 
fying the  desire  of  every  living  thing,  or  hearing  the  cry  of  a  young 
raven  when  he  calls  upon  him.  Such  notice  as  this  God  takes  of  all 
his  creatures.  But  that  v/hich  I  now  mean  relates  to  matters  of  an- 
other nature,  religious  matters,  the  things  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  passages  I  shall  bring  are  not  in- 
tended to  prove  any  new  institution  respecting  infants,  for  nothing  of 
this  kind  took  place  :  but  as  their  church  meml^ership  had  been  long 
settled,  I  only  mean  to  shov/  that  our  Lord  speaks  of  them,  under 
that  idea,  as  tbe  acI<Jiowledged  members  of  the  church  of  God.  And 
hereby  I  mean  to  evince,  that  their  membership,  which  had  been 
long  established,  was  never  annulled  to  the  present  day.  To  this  end 
I  alicdge, 

L  Luke,  ix.  47,  48.  "  And  Jesus  took  a  child,  and  set  him  by  him., 
and  [*' v/hen  he  had  taken  him  in  his  arms,"  Mark,  ix.  ZG^']  he  said 
unto  them,  Whosoever  shall  recfeive  this  child,  in  my  name,  receiveth 
me  :  And  whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiA  eth  him  that  sent  me  : 
For  he  that  is  least  among  you  all,  the  same  shall  be  great."  In  this 
passage  we  have  three  things  very  observable  : 

1 .  The  subject  spoken  of,  a  little  child.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
but  this  was  a  child  in  regard  of  his  age  ;  as  the  circumstance  of  oui» 
Lord's  taking  him  in  his  arms,  makes  this  certain  beyond  dispute.—? 
And  it  is  also  evident,  that  v^^hat  our  Lord  said,  did  not  apply  to  this 
child  alone,  as  though  something  peculiar  to  himself  led  our  Lord  so 
to  speak  ;  since  he  makes  it  a  thing  general  and  common  to  other 
children.     The  word-,  of  Mark  are,  ^'  VVhoi-oever  slia^l  receive  one  ol 


S8  ARGUMEJVTS  O.V  THE  SIDE  OF 

such  children  in  my  name."     He  meant,  therefore,  that  child  in  his 
arms,  and  other  little  children  like  him. 

2.  The  action  respecting  this  child.  "  Whosoever  shall  receive 
this  child  in  my  name."  To  receive  a  person  is  to  treat  him  suitably 
to  his  character,  place,  and  station.  John  i.  11.  "  He  came  unto 
his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not."  Rom.  xiv.  1 .  "  Him  that 
43  weak,  in  the  faith  receive  ye."  To  receive  a  person  in  the  name 
of  Christ,  is  to  treat  him  as  one  belonging  to  Christ,  as  one  in  visible 
union  with  him,  as  a  member  of  that  church,  of  which  he  is  the 
head.  Matt.  x.  40.  "He  that  receivelh  you,  receiveth  me  ;  and  he 
that  receiveth  me,  receiveth  him  that  sent  me."  This  is  spoken  of 
the  Apostles  of  Christ,  and  intends  a  treatment  suitable  to  their  charac- 
ter, and  the  relation  they  stood  in  to  him.  So  John,  xiii.  20.  Then 
the  meaning  is,  whosoever  shall  receive  this  child,  or  one  of  such  chil- 
dren, in  my  name,  i.  e.  as  persons  belonging  to  me,  and  in  visible  un- 
ion with  myself,  receiveth  me,  i.  e.  treateth  me  as  the  visible  head  of 
the  church  of, God. 

Whosoever  shall  receive  this  child,  or  one  of  such  children,  in  my 
name  1  Remarkable  phrase  1  I  have  pondered  it  in  my  own  mind, 
and  wish  to  submit  it  to  any  casuist,  with  this  question  :  Is  it  possible 
to  receive  a  person  in  the  name  of  Christ,  without  considering  that 
person  as  visibly  belonging  to  Christ  ?  I  ov/n,  that  to  me  it  appears 
impossible.  But  as  Christ  knows  best  what  his  own  words  imply,  he 
shall  determine  tlie  question.  Mark,  ix.  41.  "Whosoever  shall 
give  you  a  cup  of  water  to  drink  in  my  name,  because  ye  belong  to 
Christ."  So  to  give  to  any  in  his  name,  is  to  give  to  them,  because 
they  belong  to  Christ.  And  then,  when  Christ  speaks  of  receivifig 
little  children  in  his  name,  we  are  to  consider  little  children  as  visibly 
belonging  to  him.  And  if  they  visibly  belong  to  him,  who  is  head  of 
the  church,  it  is  because  they  visibly  belong  to  tliat  church,  of  which 
he  is  head. 

3.  The  reason  of  this  action.  This  reason  is  tv/o-fold :  1.  As 
it  respected  God  and  Christ ;  "  Vv^hosoever  shall  receive  this  child  in 
my  name,  receiveth  me;  and  whosoever  receiveth  me,  receiveth  him 
that  sent  me."  The  force  of  the  reason  lies  in  this ;  receiving  little 
children  in  Christ's  name,  i.  e.  treating  them  as  visibly  belonging  to 
him,  is  showing  a  proper  regard  to  God  and  Christ.  But  why  should 
this  be  considered  as  showing  a  proper  regard  to  God?  I  answer,  I 
"know  no  reason  in  the  world  but  one  :  and  that  is,  because  God  had 
long  before  constituted  infants  visible  members  of  his  own  church,  and 
still  continued  to  them  the  same  place  and  privilege.  2.  As  it  re- 
spected themselves.  "  He  that  is  least  among  you  all,  the  same  shall 
be  great."  This  reason  suggesteth  three  things :  1 .  Our  Lord 
speaks  of  his  disciples,  in  a  collective  capacity,  as  forming  a  religious 
society  or  church  ;  "  He  that  is  least  among  you  all."  And  this, 
indeed,  was  truly  the  case  ;  for  these  disciples,  with  others,  were 
branches  in  the  olive  tree  ;  and  such  brandies  as  were  not  broken  off. 
2.  Our  Lord  speaks  of  them,  as  having  little  children  in  their  soci- 
ety or  church  ;  "  He  that  is  least  among  you  all,  the  same  shall  be 
great."  Now,  though  it  is  true,  that  adults  on  some  accounts  may 
be  called  little  Qhildren,  yet  the  term  [least]  cannot  mean  adults  iq 


IJVFAjV  T  bap  TISM.  89 

this  place  ;  because  tliis  is  g;iven  as  a  reason  why  they  should  receive 
this  little  child.  For  what  God  will  do  for  an  adult  can  be  no  motive 
to  the  receivinjy  an  infant.  If  we  say,  God  can  make  that  adult,  which 
you  deem  very  little,  to  become  great ;  therefore  receive  this  little 
child  :  This  would  be  no  reason  at  ail.  But  if  it  be  taken  thus  :  God 
can  make  the  least  child  iu  your  community  to  become  great,  there- 
fore receive  this  little  child  ;  the  reasoning  will  be  good,  and  becoming 
the  wisdom  of  Christ.  And  this  is  no  more  than  a  plain  fact  ;  child- 
ren were  at  this  time  the  acknowledged  men>bers  of  the  church  of 
God.  3.  Our  Lord  speaks  thus,  to  induce  them  to  pay  a  proper  re- 
gard to  children.  "  The  least  among  you  shall  become  great,  there- 
fore receive  this  child  in  my  name."  Receiving  may  respect  the  first 
act  of  recognizing  a  person  a  member  of  a  church  ;  or  all  subsequent 
acts,  by  which  we  treat  them  as  such.  Our  Lord's  expression  is  ap- 
plicable to  both,  and  enjoins  both  on  his  disciples. — This  is  one  in- 
stance of  special  notice  taken  of  infants,  in  wluch  they  are  considered 
as  holding  a  place  in  the  church  of  God. 

Mark  X.  14.  "But  wiien  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased, 
and  said  unto  them,  Suifer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not  :  For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.'* 

The  persons  who  were  brought,  are  said  by  Mark  to  have  been 
young  children  ;  our  Lord  calls  them  little  children,  and  Luke  calls 
them  infants.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  they  were  such  as  were  irk 
an  infantile  state.  The  design,  for  which  they  were  brought,  is  said 
to  be,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them,  and  pray.  Some  of  the 
Baptists  A'?^/?//05e  they  were  diseased  children,  and  were  brought  to  our 
Lord  to  be  healed  ;  but  of  this  there  is  nothing  said.  It  is  m.ost 
likely  they  were  brought  to  receive  the  benediction  of  Christ. 
Mark  x.  16. 

That  this  passage  regards  infants,  as  continuing  in  a  state  of  church 
membership,  which  is  ail  I  produce  it  for,  will  appear  by  considering 
of  whom  our  Lord  spake,  and  what  he  spake  of  them. 

1.  Of  whom  he  spake.  There  can  be  very  little  difficulty  on  this 
'part  of  the  subject,  as  we  are  plainly  told  wliat  the  persons  were  who 
were  brought  to  him,  and  of  whom  it  is  evident  he  spake.  Some  of 
the  Baptists  remarking  upon  the  phrase  ton  toiou;on  of  such,  or  of  such 
like,  affirm  that  our  Lord  meant  adults  of  a  child-like  disposition,  and 
that  of  these,  and  not  of  the  infants,  he  said.  Of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God.  This  construction,  which  indeed  has  nothing  to  support  it, 
will  appear  very  uncouth,  when  we  consider  these  words  of  our  Lord, 
as  a  reason  for  bringing  and  permitting  the  little  children  to  come  to 
him  :  Suffer  them  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God.  But  this  exposition,  besides  that  it  makes  our  Lord  speak  ob- 
scurely, represents  him  as  giving  a  reason  quite  distant  from  the  sub- 
ject he  was  upon.  For  whereas  a  reason  for  coming  should  be  taken 
from  those  wIiq  are  to  come,  and  not  from  others  ;  this  exposition 
makes. our  lyord  say,  Suffer  ;//fir  to  come,  because  those  belong  to  the. 
kingdom.  To  say,  adults  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  no  good 
reason  for  bringing  infants  to  Christ.  It  is  a  much  better  one  to  say, 
suffer  these  little  children  to  come,  because  these  little  children,  and 
fathers  likK  them,  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God.     But  if  it  be  said, 


others  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  because  they  are  like  infaiuf^t 
then  infants  must  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God  because  they  are  like 
them.  The  truth  is,  our  Lord  evidently  speaks  of  infants  as  he  had 
done  before,  in  the  preceding  passage. 

2.  \Vhat  he  spake  of  them  :  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  that 
is,  such  belong  to  the  kingdom.  Our  enquiry  is,  what  kingdom  did 
our  Lord  mean  ?  was  it  the  church,  or  a  state  of  glory  ?  If  the  Lord 
meant  the  church,  then  he  has  asserted  what  I  contend  for,  that  in- 
fants were  spoken  of  by  him,  as  members  of  the  church  ;  and,  there- 
fore, the  fact  is  established.  But  the  Baptists  in  general  understand 
this  of  a  state  of  glory,  and  allow  infants  to  belong  to  that,  but  deny 
that  they  belong  to  the  church.  This,  indeed,  is  granting  the  great- 
er, and  denying  the  less  ;  and  therefore  an  argument  may  be  taken, 
from  what  they  grant,  to  destroy  what  they  deny  ;  that  is,  an  argu- 
ment a  majoi'-c  ad  mimis.  If  infants  belong  to  a  state  of  glory,  which 
is  the  greater ;  then  much  more  do  they  belong  to  a  church  state, 
which  is  the  less.  Besides,  as  the  institution  of  a  church  is  a  dispell-" 
sation  of  God,  which  leads  to  glory  ;  it  is  absurd  to  grant  persons  a: 
place  \W  glory,  and  at  the  same  time  deny  them  a  place  in  that  dis- 
pensation which  leads  to  it. 

Though  to  affirm,  that  our  Lord,  by  the  kingdom  of  God,  intend- 
ed a  state  of  glory,  does  not  militate  against,  but  rather  concludes  for 
the  church  membership  of  infants  ;  there  are  some  considerations 
which  serve  to  evince,  that  our  Lord  intended  the  church  on  earth 
ch.efly,  if  not  only  ;  for  I  have  some  doubt  v/hether  he  did  not  in- 
tend both,  though  the  church  more  particularly.  It  is  to  be  observed, 
in  the  first  place,  that  these  w^ords,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  were  spoken  to  the  Apostles,  as  a  reason  for  their  suffering, 
and  a  rebuke  for  their  hindering  little  children  to  come  unto  him. 
Now  it  is  ahvays  more  natural,  when  we  intend  to  reason  with,  or 
rebuke  any  person,  to  fix  upon  that  as  a  reason,  which  is  most  familiur 
to  him.  Tiie  Apostles  v/ere  well  acquainted  with  the  membership  of 
infants  in  the  church,  as  a  practice  wdiich  had  prevailed  in  their  na- 
tion for  many  centuries  ;  whereas  they  could  know  but  little  of  the 
state  of  infants  with  respect  to  glory.  Now  as  the  reason,  why  these 
little  children  should  be  suffered  to  come,  was,  that  they  belonged  to 
the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  as  this  was  designed,  at  the  same  time,  as 
a  rebuke,  it  nmst  be  evident,  that  our  Lord  intended  that  idea  of  tlio 
kingdom  with  which  they  were  most  familiar.  For  had  it  been  meant 
of  a  state  of  glory,  the  Apostles  might  very  well  have  pleaded  ignor- 
ance ;  but  they  could  not  be  ignorant  that  infants  belonged  to  the 
church,  and  therefore  the  reproof  could  not  come  home  to  them,  but 
under  that  idea.  For  in  that  they  acted  contrary  to  a  principle  they 
knew  in  keephig  those,  who  belonged  to  the  church,  from  the  church's 
Head. 

It  may  further  be  remarked,  that  it  is  highly  reasonable  to  con- 
clude, that  our  Lord  intended  the  same  reason,  for  infants  coming  to 
him,  as  he  had  urged  to  others,  for  tlieir  receiving  them.  Others 
were  to  receive  infants  in  his  name  ;  aiid  v/ith  this  to  enforce  it,  that 
whosoever  received  them  in  his  name,  received  him,  £cc.  Tliis  ex* 
prcssion  denotes  ?.  relation  to  hiir-self,  a5  il"  he  had  said,  R-cceive  thsrn, 


JJ^FJNT  BAPTISM:  ^% 

because  they  belong  to  me,  receive  them  as  yoii  would  ar  disciple.— < 
This  is  a  reason  that  has  respect  to  present  relation ;  and  if  it  be 
natural  to  suppose,  thiit  our  Lord  .ajives  a  similar  reason  for  their 
comini^  to  him,  the  khigdom  of  God  will  not  mean  a  future  stal^  of 
blessedness,  but;  a  present  church  state,  to  whicli  they  belong.  Mere-* 
over,  it  may  be  said  with  much  more  truth  of  infants  in  (general ; 
and  it  is  of  such  our  Lord  speaks,  that  they  belong  to  a  church  on 
earth,  than  to  a  state  of  glory  :  Because  many  may  belong  to  the  form- 
er who  do  not  belonr\-  to  the  latter.  And  whereas  it  cannot  be  said  of 
infants,  as  such,  that  they  belong  to  a  state  of  glory,  ibr  then  all 
would  be  saved,  because  all  have  been  infants  ;  but  it  could  be  said 
of  infants,  as  infants,  where  our  Lord  was,  that  they  belonged  to  th» 
cliurch  on  earth. 

I  only  introduce  this  to  show,  that  our  Lord,  in  saying.  Of  sUch  isi 
the  kingdom  of  God,  did  recognize  infants  as  church-members. — • 
And  against  this  sense  of  the  kingdom,  as  meaning  the  church,  the 
Baptists  bring  only  one  objection,  viz.  the  incapacity  of  infants.— 
But  this  is  removed  by  the  practice  of  many  centuries  ;  which  shows 
that  God  does  not  judge  of  incapacity,  after  the  manner  of  men. — < 
What  our  Lord  said,  as  it  proves  the  membership  of  infants,  which 
is  ail  I  brought  it  for,  so  it  is  no  more  tlian  what  was  familiar  to  tiie 
whole  nation. 

Acts  ii.  38,  39.  "Then  Peter  said  unto  them.  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the 
promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off, 
«ven  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

As  this  passage  is  only  brought  forward  to  show,  that  infants  are 
fepoken  of  in  the  Nev/  Testament,  as  church-members,  agreeable  to 
the  ancient  dispensation  of  God  ;  I  shall  confme  myself  to  these  three 
conclusions. 

L  Th:t  the  plira::c,  '-to  you,  and  to  your  children,"  intends  adults 
tmd  inranlz. 

IL  That  this  promise  must  comprehend  adults  and  infants,  wher- 
ever it  comes,  even  as  long  as  God  shali  continue  his  v,6rd  to  us. 

in.  That  infants  are  placed  hi  the  same  relation  to  baptism,  asthef 
*vcre  of  old  to  circumcision. 

These  I  shall  now  proceed  to  evince  ;  and  in  the  first  place  I  affirm, 

I.  That  the  phrase.  To  you  and  toyoitr  children)  intends  adults  and 
infants.     This  may  be  proved  by  considering, 

1.  The  resemblance  between  this  promise,  and  that  in  Gen.  xvii* 
7,  "  To  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  unto  thy  seed  after  thee.**  The 
resemblance  between  these  two  lies  in  two  things  ;  1  *  Each  stands  con- 
nected with  an  ordinance,  by  wliich.  persons  were  to  be  admitted  into 
church-fellov  ship  ;  the  one  by  circumcision,  t'le  other  by  baptism. 

Both  agree  in  phraseology,  the  one  is,  "  to  tliee,  tnd  to  thy  seed  ;'* 
the  other  is,  "to  you,  and  to  your  children.*'  Now  every  oue  knows 
that  the  word  seed  means  children  ;  ana  that  children  means  seed  ; 
and  that  tliey  are  precisely  tiie  same.  From  tJiese  two  strongly  re- 
sembling features,  viz.  their  connexion  with  a  similar  ordinance,  and 
the  sameness  of  the  phrasec/lc^y,  I  iiifir,  that  tht  subjects  expresse4 


i2  JRGUMEXTS  OX  THE  SIDE  OF 

in  each,  are  the  very  same.  And  as  it  is  certain  that  parents  and  in- 
fants  were  intended  by  the  one ;  it  must  be  equally  certain  that  both 
are  intended  by  the  other. 

2.  The  sense,  in  Avliich  the  speaker  must  have  understood  the  sen- 
tence hi  question.     The  promise  is,  to  you  and  to  your  children. 

In  order  to  know  this,  we  must  consider  who  the  speaker  was,  and 
from  what  source  he  leceived  his  religious  knowledge.  The  Apostle, 
It  is  evident,  was  a  Jew,  and  brought  up  in  the  Jewish  church.  He 
knew  the  practice  of  that  church,  with  respect  to  those  who  were  ad- 
mitted to  be  its  members.  He  knew,  that  he  himself  had  been  ad- 
7T\itted  in  infancy,  and  that  it  was  the  ordinary  practice  of  the  church 
to  admit  infants  to  membership.  And  he  likewise  knew,  that  in  this 
they  acted  on  the  authority  of  that  place,  where  God  promises  to 
Abraham,  "to  be  a  God  unto  him,  and  to  his  seed."  Now  if  the 
Apostle  knew  all  this  \  in  v/hat  sense  could  he  understand  tiie  terni 
children,  as  distinguished  from  their  parents?  I  have  said,  that  tekna^ 
children,  and  fijierma^  seed,  mean  the  same  thing.  And  as  the  Apostle 
well  knev/,  that  the  term  seed  intended  infants,  though  not  mere  in- 
fants only ;  and  tiiat  infants  were  circumcised,  and  received  into  the 
church,  as  being  the  seed  ;.  what  elsv-i  could  he  understand,  by  the 
term  children,  when  mentioned  with  their  parents  ?  Those  who  v/ill 
have  the  Apostle  to  mean,  by  the  term  «^hildren,  adult  posterity  only, 
have  this  infelicity  attending  them,  that  they  understand  the  term  dif- 
ferently from  all  other  men ;  and  this  absurdity,  that  they  attribute 
to  the  AjXistle  a  sense  of  the  word,  which  to  him  must  have  been  the. 
most  unfamiliar  and  forced.  And,  thorefore,  that  sense  of  the  word 
for  which  they  contend,  is  the  most  unlikely  of  all  to  be  the  true  one, 
because  it  is  utterly  improbable  that  a  person  should  use  a  word  in  that 
sense  which  to  him,  and  to  all  the  world  beside,  was  altogether  unfa- 
miliar, 

3.  In  what  sense  his  hearers  must  have  understood  him,  when  he 
said,  "  The  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children," 

The  context  informs  us,  that  many  of  St.  Peter*s  hearers,  as  he. 
himself  was,  were  Jev/s.  They  had  been  accustomed  for  many  hun- 
dred years  to  receive  infants,  by  circumcision,  into  the  church ;  and 
this  they  did,  as  before  observed,  because  God  had  promised  to  be  a 
God  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed.  They  had  understood  this  prom- 
ise, to  mean  parents  and  their  infant  offspring ;  and  this  idea  was  be- 
come fcimiliar  by  the  practice  of  many  centuries.  What  then  must 
have  been  their  views,  when  one  oftheir  own  community  says  to  them, 
*'  The  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children  ?"  If  their  practice  of 
receiving  infants  v/as  founded  on  a  promise  exactly  similar,  as  it  cer- 
tainly was;  how  could  they  possibly  understand  him,  but  as  meaning 
the  same  thing,  since  he  himself  used  the  same  mode  of  speech  ?  This 
must  have  been  the  case,  unless  we  admit  tliis  absurdity,  that  they  un- 
derstood him  in  a  sense  to  which  they  had  never  been  accustomed. 
.  How  idle  a  thing  it  is,  in  a  Baptist,  to  come  with  a  lexicon  in  his 
hand,  and  a  criticism  in  his  head,  to  inform  us  that  tekna^  children, 
means  posteiity  !  Certainly  it  does,  and  so  means  the  youngest  in- 
fants. The  verb  tikto^  from  which  it  comes,  signifies,  to  bring  forth, 
?',  €.  the  oflspring;.     Aiid  are  not  infants  of  that  number  ?  But  the 


l^rFJ^rT  baptism.  43 

Baptistjs  will  have  it  that  tekna^  children,  in  this  place,  means  only- 
adult  posterity.  And,  if  so,  the  Jews,  to  whom  he  spoke,  unless  they 
understood  him  in  a  way  in  which  it  was  morally  impossible  they  should, 
would  infallibly  have  understood  him  wroni^.  Certainly  all  men, 
when  acting  freely,  will  understand  Mords  in  that  way  which  is  most 
familiar  to  them  ;  and  nothing  could  be  more  familiar  to  the  Jews, 
than  to  miderstand  such  a  speech  as  Peter's  to  mean  adults  and  in- 
fants. So  that  if  the  Jews,  the  awakened  Jews,  had  apprehended 
the  Apostle  to  mean  only  adults,  Avhen  he  said,  "  To  you  and  to  your 
children  ;"  they  must  have  h;  d  an  undei'standing  of  such  a  pccidiar 
construction,  as  to  make  that  sense  of  a  word,  which  to  them  was  to- 
tally unnatural  and  forced,  to  become- familliar  and  easy. 

We  should  more  certainly  come  at  the  truth,  if,  instead  of  idly  crit- 
icising, we  could  faiK--y  ourselves  Jews,  and  in  the  habit  of  circum- 
cising infants,  and  receiving  them  into  the  church.  And  then,  could 
we  imagine  one  of  our  o\vii  nation  and  religion,  to  address  us  in  the 
very  language  of  Peter  in  this  text,  "  The  promise  is  to  you  and  yqur 
children  ;"  let  us  ask  ourselves,  as  in  the  sight  of  God,  v/hethcr  we 
could  ever  suppose  him  to  mean  adult  posterity  only  ?  Or  if,  instead  of 
putting  ourselves  in  the  situation  of  Jews,  we  should  suppose  the  Apos<p 
tie  to  address  the  members  of  the  establishment,  in  the  same  phrase- 
ology, as  he  did  the  Jews,  can  any  person  doubt,  whether  they  would 
understand  him  to  mean  adults  and  infants  ?  It  is  certainly  impossible. 
And  why  ?  Because  they  have  been  for  ages  in  the  habit  of  receiving* 
infants  into  the  church.  Just  so  it  was  v/ith  the  Jews  when  the  A- 
postle  addressed  them  ;  and,  therefore,  they  could  15.0  more  have  un- 
derstood him,  as  meaning  to  exclude  infants,  than  the  members  of 
the  establishment  would  by  the  use  of  the  same  phrase. 

I  have  been  endeavoring  to  prove  that  both  Peter,  v/lio  spoke,  and 
the  Jews,  who  were  his  hearers,  must  have  understood  the  promise  in 
the  text  to  mean  adults  and  infants  ;  because  such  a  meaning  would 
be  to  them  the  most  natural  and  obvious,  both  fiom  their  own  habit 
and  practice,  ai:d  from  its  exact  resemblance  to  that  promise  on  which 
their  practice  was  founded,  and  by  which  their  habit  was  foiTned. 
But  since  Mr.  Booth  and  all  the  Baptists  will  have  it  to  mean  no  such 
thing,  I  shall  only  say,  as  Mr.  B.  does  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Wil- 
liams, page  274,  "  Then  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  might  well  say,  though 
a  man  accustomed  to  satisfy  himself  with  the  obvious  and  natural 
meaning  of  a  sentence,  does  not  easily  shake  off  his  habit,  yet  a  true 
bred  lawyer  never  contents  himself  wiih  this  sense  when  there  is  an- 
other to  be  found.  My  opponent,  says  Mr.  B.  to  Dr.  W.  seems  to 
have  imbibed  the  spirit  of  Dr.  Johnson's  true  bred  lav,  yer  ;  for  he 
caimot  be  at  all  content,  with  the  obvious  and  natural  meaning.  Sec.'* 

Mutato  nomine^  tP'c.     This  is  true  of  Mr.  Jiooth. 1  am  to  prove 

in  the  next  place, 

II.  That  this  promise  must  comprehend  adults  and  infants  wherev- 
er it  comes,  let  it  come  wherever  it  may. 

The  Apostle,  in  applying  this  promise,  distinguishes  those  to  whom 
it  is  to  apply  into  present  and  absent.  The  first  class  were  his  hear- 
ers ;  the  second  he  describes  two  ways — all  that  are  afar  off — as  ma- 
ny as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call.     To  eacli  of  these  classes,  viz. 


44  JRGUMI:A'TS  O^r  THE  &IDE  OF 

those  who  Avere  present,  and  those  Avho  were  absent,  he  applies  the 
promise  in  the  text.     To  those  who  were  present,  the  promise  is,  t» 
you  and  to  your  children  ; — to  those  afar  off,  the  promise  is,  to  you 
and  to  your  children  ;— to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,  the 
promise  is,  to  you  and  to  your  children.  Let  the  promise  come  to  what 
i>ersons  soever  it  may,  it  must  come  to  them  and  to  their  children  ; 
because  the  promise  must  be  the  same  wherever  God  shall  send  it.    I 
^ave  already  proved  that  the  words  [you  and  children]  mean  adults 
and  infants  ;  and  both  beirii^  in  the  promise,  it  must  therefore  belong 
\o  each  :  To  you  adults  and  to  your  infants,  who  are  present ;  to  you 
adults,  who  are  afar  ofi',  and  to  your  infants  ;  to  as  many  adults  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call,  and  their  infants.     That  this  is  true  may  be 
proved  by  considering  the  essence  or  nature  of  the  promise. 
'    There  are  two  things  which  enter  into  the  essence  of  a  promise  :  It 
must  contain  some  good — -it  must  be  m^de  to  some  person  or  persons. 
That  these  two  belong  to  the  esserice  of  a  promise  appears  by  this, 
that  if  either  be  taken  away,  there  can  be  no  promise- — e.  g.  I  will  be  a 
God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  ;  the  good  in  this  promise  is  God  him- 
self— the  persons  v/ere  Abraham  and  his  seed.     If  the  good  be  taken 
away,  it  will  then  be  no  promise  ;  I  will—to  thee  and  to  thy  seed. 
The  case  will  be  the  same  if  the  persons  are  taken  away  ;  I  will  be  a 
God — in  either  case  it  is  no  promise.     So  when  a  promise  is  made  to 
different  persons,  one  person  i^as  essential  to  the  promise  as  the  other 
- — e.  g.  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  ;  the  promise  is  as 
much  to  the  seed  as  to  Abrah:\m,  and  as  much  to  Abraham  as  to 
the  seed  ;  because  both  are  essential  to  the  promise. 

Now  the  Apostle,  expressing  the  essence  or  nature  of  the  promise 
in  the  text,  as  it  respects  tlie  objects,  says,  "  The  promise  is  to  you 
and  to  your  children."  Both  parts,  therefore,  belong  to  the  promise  ; 
it  is  essential  to  the  promise  that  it  be-— to  you  ;— it  is  likewise  cssen^ 
tial  to  it  tiud  it  be  to  your  children.  And  the  case  being  so,  we  can- 
not take  avi^ay  either  part  without  violatinp;  the  essence  of  the  promise. 
We  have  no  more  right  to  say,  The  promice  is  to  you,  but  not  to 
your  children,  than  the  promise  is  to  your  children,  but  not  to  you  ; 
for  as  it  was  the  design  of  God  that  the  promise  should  be  to  both,  it 
-was  his  design  that  it  should  be  to  their  children  as  truly  as  to  them- 
selves. And  so  the  promise  must  be  to  Peter's  hearers  and  their  chil- 
dren— ^to  all  that  are  afar  off,  and  to  their  children — to  as  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,  and  to  their  children  ;  and  the  reason 
is,  both  enter  into  the  essence  of  the  promise.  So  when  God  said, 
*'  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed,"  it  would  apply,  in  the 
same  form,  '<  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed,"  to  every  man  and  every  gen- 
eration of  men  of  the  offspring  of  Abraham,  us  long  as  the  promise 
%vas  in  force. 

Mr.  Booth  objects  to  this,  in  vol.  ii.  p.  $55^  and  ?:ays,  "These 
■words  [as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  sludl  call]  are,  as  plamly  as 
possible,  a  limiting  clause,  and  extend  a  restrictive  force  to  the  term 
children,  as  much  as  to  the  pronoun  you,  or  to  that  descriptive  lan- 
guage, "  all  that  are  afar  oif."  To  this  I  reply,  that  the  Apostle  him- 
self did  riot  make  use  of  that  limit  which  Mr.  B.  says  is  so  plain ; 
fpr  the  Apostle  actually  spoke  to  thoge  who,  in  Mr.  3's.  sense,  were 


IjYFAjYT  baptism.  45 

^already  awakened  and  called  ;  and  then,  as  plainly  as  possible,  dis- 
tinguishes between  them  and  their  children.  Now  if  the  Apostle  ad- 
dressed those  who  were  already  called,  and  extended  the  promise  be- 
yond them,  even  to  their  children,  then  the  promise  was  not  limited 
to  the  called.  But  this  the  Apostle  actually  did  as  plainly  as  words 
could  express  it  ;  for  he  spoke  to  those  who  were  pricked  in  their 
heart,  and  said,  "  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?"  To  these 
he  said,  "  The  promise  is  unto  you" — and,  instead  of  confining  it  to 
them  only,  he  extends  it  to  their  children  also  ;  and  so  passes  over  that 
limit  which  Mr.  B.  is  pleased  to  lay  down.  And  as  the  Apostle  ex- 
tends the  promise  beyond  the  called  in  the  first  clause,  we  must  follow 
his  example,  and  extend  it  beyond  the  called  in  the  last  clause — thus 
the  promise  is  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,  and  to  their 
children :  And  then  Mr.  B's.  limiting  clause  v/ill  be  nothing  more 
than  a  very  lame  evasion. 

Notwithstanding  this,  there  is  some  truth  in  Mr.  B's.  idea  respect- 
ing the  limiting  clause,  though  he  himself,  by  misapplication,  has 
done  violence  to  that  truth.  That  clause,  "  to  as  many  as  the  Lord 
pur  God  shall  call,"  is  really  a  limithig  clause,  but  not  in  that  way 
Mr.  B.  supposes.  This,  like  every  other  promise,  has  t\\-o  limits,  and 
these  two  are  fixed  by  tvvo  limiting  clauses  :  One  limit  determines 
how  wide  the  promise  shall  extend  ;  the  other  how  far  it  is  to  run— • 
the  one  is  a  limit  of  latitude,  the  other  of  longitude.  The  limit  of 
latitude  extends  to  parents  and  children — that  of  longitude  reaches 
down  "  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  cur  God  shall  call."  And  as  there 
is  a  perfect  harmony  between  these  two,  there  is  no  need  to  destroy 
the  one  in  order  to  preserve  the  other ;  for  both  limits  being  settled 
and  fixed,  that  of  latitude,  which  extends  to  parents  and  children, 
must  contmue  firm,  till,  through  successive  ages,  it  comes  down  to 
that  of  longitude,  which  reaches  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call  ;  that  is,  as  long  as  God  shall  continue  to  call,  the  promise 
shall  pertain  to  parents  and  children. 

Mr.  B.  therefore,  was  very  right  in  making  this  a  limiting  clause, 
for  so  it  really  is  ;  but  he  v.ay  very  wrong  when,  instead  of  preserving 
both,  he  set  one  limit  to  destroy  the  other.  And  as  it  often  falls  out 
that  those,  who  do  violence  to  the  spirit  of  a  text,  are  led  to  utter 
some  rash  expression  against  tlie  letter  of  it,  just  so  it  has  fallen  out 
in  Mr.  B's.  cai:.e.  He  has  violated  one  limit  in  the  text,  and  has  so 
expressed  himself  as  to  exceed  ail  limits  of  truth.  In  vol.  ii.  p.  354, 
he  has  said,  "  There  js  nothing  said  about  the  promise  respecting  any 
besides  those  who  were  then  awakened."  Ti.ose,  who  were  av/aken- 
ed,  are  distinguished  by  the  pronoun  '^  you  ;"  and  it  is  certain  some- 
thing is  said  about  the  promise  respecting  them.  But,  says  Mr.  B. 
*'  There  is  nothing  said  about  the  })romiae  respecting  any  besides." 
Tvlr.  B.  should  not  have  said  this  with  the  text  before  his  eyes.  He 
should  first  have  erased  that  clause  of  it,  ''  and  to  your  children,"  and 
not  have  let  it  stand  to  stare  him  in  tlie  face,  and  convict  him  of  false- 
hood. As  something  was  said  about  tlie  promise  respecUng  those 
who  Avere  awakened,  and  their  children  both,  he  might  as  weil  have 
denied  it  respecting  the  awakened,  as  to  deny  it  respecting  their  chil- 
dren :  But  it  is  often  the  fate  of  those  who  oppose  truth,  to  lose  truth, 
and  modestv  to-^etlier. 


45  ARGUME^'TS  OjV  THE  SIDE  OF 

When  any  dispute  happens  on  a  place  of  Scripture,  and  it  cannot 
be  settled  from  the  context,  the  best  way  is  to  pass  to  a  similar  place, 
and  observe  (if  there  be  any  plain  indications)  in  what  manner  that 
was  understood,  and  what  practice  took  place  upon  it.  That  passage 
to  which  the  text  bears  the  strongest  resemblance,  is  Genesis  xvii.  7. 
*'  I  will  establish  my  covenant — to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed."  There  is  no  place  in  Scripture  so  like  the  text  as  this  ;  they 
are  both  worded  in  the  same  way — "  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed" — to 
you  and  to  your  children  :  They  are  both  connected  with  a  religious 
ordinance.  By  seed,  which  is  the  same  as  children,  was  meant  an 
infant  of  eight  days  old  and  upwards  ;  and  because  a  promise  is  made 
to  the  seed,  an  infant  becomes  the  subject  of  a  religious  ordinance. 
Now,  if  the  language  of  the  text  be  similar,  and  if  it  be  connected 
with  a  religious  ordinance  as  that  was,  what  better  comment  can  be 
made  upon  it  than  what  that  passage  suggests  ?  Why  should  not 
the  ideas  be  alike,  if  the  language  and  circumstances  be  so  ?  The 
reason  why  a  comparing  of  Scripture  with  Scripture  assists  the  un- 
derstanding, is  this  :  When  God  uses  the  same  kind  of  language  in 
two  places  of  Scripture,  and  the  circumstances  are  alike,  it  is  plain  he 
means  to  be  understood  as  intending  similar  things.  This  is  so  sure 
a  rule  of  interpretation,  that  we  are  not  afraid  of  venturing  our  ever- 
lasting interests  upon  it.  And,  by  adopting  it  in  this  instance,  the 
result  will  be  clearly  this  :  That  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  phrase, 
*'  you  and  your  children,"  meant  adults  and  infants  ;  that  these  are 
placed  together  in  the  same  promise  ;  and  that  the  promise,  thus 
made  to  adults  and  infants,  is  connected  with  baptism. — And  from 
hence  it  may  be  proved, 

III.  That  infants  are  placed  in  the  same  relation  to  baptism,  as 
they  were  of  old  to  circumcision. 

Let  any  one  compare  the  two  places  together,  viz.  Gen.  xvii.  7,  9, 
10,  and  this  now  before  us,  and  he  will  see  that  parents  and  chil- 
dren are  united,  m  each  promise,  in  the  sam^e  v/ay — there  the  promise 
is,  "  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed" — here  it  is,  "  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren ;" — that  the  promise,  in  each  place,  is  connected  with  a  re- 
ligious ordinance  :  In  Genesis  it  is  connected  with  circumcision — in 
this  text  with  baptism  ; — that,  in  both  places,  the  ordinance  is  made 
to  result  from  the  promise — the  one  is  set  dov.n  as  a  reason  for  the 
other;  Gen,  xvii.  9.  "  Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant  therefore  ;"  that 
is,  because  God  had  given  a  promise.  So  here,  "  Repent,  and  let 
every  one  of  you,  of  yours,  be  baptized,  for  iga?^,  because)  the^rom- 
ise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children  :"  Infants,  tlierefore,  in  this  passage, 
are  placed  in  the  same  relation  to  baptism  as  they  were  anciently  to 
circumcision.     This  being  so,  I  reason  thus  : 

When  a  positive  institute  is  connected  with  a  promise  all,  who  are 
contained  in  the  promise,  have  a  right  to  the  institute.  I  think  any 
one  may  be  compelled  to  grant  this,  as  it  is  certainly  an  undeniable 
truth  ;  for  if  parents  must,  therefore,  be  circumcised  because  they  are 
included  in  the  promise,  then,  as  infants  are  also  included  in  the  prom- 
ise, they  too  must  be  circumcised.  All  this  is  evinced  by  the  his- 
tory of  ciicumciston,  and  is  indeed  a  self-evident  case  ;  because  if  a 
promise  give  a  right  to  an  institute,  the  institute  must  belong  to  all 


IJ^FJ.VT  BAPTISM.  Kt 

who  are  interested  in  the  promise.  And,  therefore,  we  may  reason 
thus :  If  parents  must  be  baptized  because  the  promise  belont^s  to 
them,  tlien  must  their  infants  be  baptized,  because  the  promise  is  to 
them  also.  This  mode  of  reasoning  is  the  more  certain,  as  it  is  con- 
firmed, beyond  all  doubt,  by  tiie  divine  procedure ;  for  if  you  ask, 
Who  were  to  be  circumcised?  the  reply  is,  Those  to  whom  the  prom- 
ise was  made.  If  you  inquire  again,  To  whom  was  the  promise  made  ? 
we  answer,  to  adults  and  infants.  Again,  if  you  ask.  Who  are  to  be 
baptized  ?  the  answer  is,  Those  to  whom  the  promise  was  made.— • 
But  to  Avhom  is  it  made  ?  The  Apostle  says,  "  To  you  and  to  your 
children."  Now  what  proof  more  direct  can  be  made  or  desired  for 
infant  baptism. 

P>om  these  premises  the  result  is  plainly  this :  That  as  infants 
stand  in  this  ter.t,  in  the  same  relation  to  baptism  as  they  did  to  cir- 
cumcision, their  light  to  the  one  must  be  the  same  as  it  was  to  the  oth- 
er. The  case  in  both  instances,  stands  fairly  thus  :  The  promise  con- 
nects itself  with  the  ordinance  ;  that  with  circumcision — this  with  bap- 
tism. It  also  connects  two  parties  together,  infants  and  parents,  and 
imitesthem  both  to  that  ordinance  with  which  itself  is  connected.  It 
is  by  virtue  of  the  union  of  the  promise  with  the  ordinance  that  those 
who  have  an  interest  in  the  one  have  a  right  to  the  other ;  ai:»d  when 
two  parties,  parents  and  children,  are  interested  in  the  same  promise, 
lUidthe  promise  gives  a  right  to  the  ordinance,  it  gives  the  same  right 
to  both  the  parties  who  are  interested  in  it.  And  hence,  as  parents  and 
children  are  interested  in  the  promise,  the  right  of  the  children  to  the 
«rdinance  is  the  same  as  that  of  parents. 

I  produce  these  three  passages  only  to  show  that  special  notice  is 
taken  of  infants,  and  that  they  are  spoken  of  agreeable  to  the  idea 
of  their  church  membership.  In  Luke  ix.  47,  48,  our  Lord  pro- 
poses them  for  reception  in  his  name,  and  thereby  owns  them  as  visi- 
bly lelated  to  himself.  He  indicates  that  tlie  reception  was  to  be  of 
the  same  kind  as  that  which  might  be  claimed  by  his  own  disciples  ; 
and  that  receiving  them,  as  visibly  related  to  himself,  /.  e.  in  his  name, 
was  showing  a  proper  respect  to  him,  and  to  his  Father  who  sent  him  : 
**  Whosoever  shall  receive  this  child  inra.yname,  receivcth  me;  and 
whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth  him  that  sent  me,"  Sec.  In 
Mark  x.  14,  our  Lord  explicitly  declares  what  was  the  ground  of 
that  reception,  by  expressing  their  visible  relation  to  the  church,  and 
so  to  himself; — "Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God;"  as  such  they 
were  to  be  brought  to  him,  and  no  one  was  to  forbid  them  to  come. — 
In  Acts  ii.  38,  39,  infants  are  placed  in  the  same  relation  to  baptism 
as  they  were  before  to  circumcision.  The  Apostle  unites  them  Avitii 
their  parents  in  the  promise,  and  connects  that  promise  with  baptism, 
thereby  copying  the  divine  pattern  in  Genesis,  xvii.  and  allotting  them 
the  same  station,  with  respect  to  baptism,  as  they  had  before  with  re- 
gard to  circumcision. 

In  each  of  these  cases  infants  are  spoken  of  agreeable  to  that  con- 
stitution of  God,  by  which  they  were  admitted  to  church  membership, 
and  to  a  religious  ordinance.  And  this  being  all  that  my  argument 
requires,  I  shall  proceed  to  notice  one  thing  more,  viz. 

IV'.  The  historical  account  of  the  baptism  of  households  as  record- 
ed IR  the  Scripture. 


'43  JRGVMEjYTS  OJV  TLIE  SIDE  OF 

The  instances  of  this  kind  are  three  :  The  family  of  Lydla,  Acta 
xvi.  15;  the  family  of  the  jailer,  Acts  xvi.  33;  and  that  of  Ste^ 
phanus,  I  Cor.  i.  16.  The  case  of  the  jailer  and  his  faiiiily  is  thus 
described :  "  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and 
washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway- 
And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before 
them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his  honse,  ee^alliasato 
fiarifjiki  jiejiisteukoa  to  Thtto.  He  rejoiced  domestically,  believing  in 
God  ;  2.  e.  he^  believing*  in  God,  rejoiced  over  his  family.  Now  as 
the  household  of  the  jailer  is  expressed  by  the  phrase,  "  all  his,  or 
all  of  his,"  it  explains  the  term  Oiko%^  household,  or  fam.ily,  which 
is  used  in  the  two  other  instances  :  So  then,  to  baptize  a  man's  house-* 
hold  is  to  baptize  all  his.  This  may  serve  as  a  pattern  of  primitive 
practice—he  and  all  his  were  baptized.  But  whether  all  believed,  or 
v/ere  capable  of  believing,  is  not  said,  no  mention  being  made  of  any 
one's  faith  but  his  own.  And  though  I  do  not  consider  this  historic 
account  as  having  force  enough  of  itself  to  evince  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, yet  there  are  two  considerations  which  give  it  weight  on  that 
side. 

( 1 .)  Its  agreement  with  that  practice,  in  which  we  are  sure  infants 
were  included  ;  I  mean  the  practice  of  Abraham,  and  the  Jews)  with 
respect  to  circumcision.  This  agreement  may  be  considered,  1.  In 
the  principle  which  led  to  the  practice.  Circumcision  was  fovmded  on 
this  promise  of  God,  "  I  will — ^be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed.'* 
Baptism  proceeds  on  this  that  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren: And  in  this  they  are  both  alike.  2.  In  the  practice  itself. — 
When  Abraham  received  circumcision,  his  household  were  circum- 
cised with  him :  So  the  jailer,  when  he  was  baptized,  all  his  were 
baptized  likewise.  Nov/,  when  we  discern  two  cases  alike  in  princi- 
ple and  pi-actice  ;  and  are  sure,  that  infants  were  included  in  the  one  ; 
we  then  very  naturally  are  led  to  conclude,  that  infants  must  be  intend- 
ed in  the  other. 

(2.)  Its  concordance  with  the  hypothesis  of  infant  baptism.  Such 
accounts  as  these,  have  a  favorable  aspect  on  the  sentiments  of  Pxdo-* 
baptists  ;  because  on  their  plan,  provided  they  were  placed  in  the  same 
circumstances  as  the  Apostles  were,  whose  lot  it  was  to  preach  the 
Gospel  where  Christ  had  not  been  named  ;  cases  of  a  like  nature 
would  very  frequently  occur.  Whereas,  on  the  plan  of  the  Baptists, 
if  placed  in  similar  circumstances,  though  we  might  hear  of  various 
persons  baptized  on  a  profession  of  faith ;  we  should  not  expect  to 
hear  of  the  baptizing  of  households  ;  or,  that  any  man,  and  all 
his,  were  baptized  straightway.  And  indeed,  the  very  idea  of  bap- 
tising households,  and  of  a  man,  and  all  his,  being  baptized  at  the 
same  time,  does  so  naturally  fall  in  with  the  views  of  P^dopabtists, 
that  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  passes  with  the  common  people,  instead 
of  a  hundred  arguments.  For  though  they  do  not  reason  by  mood 
and  figure,  neither  do  they  confine  themselves  to  logical  accuracy,  in 
any  form  ;  yet  they  have  logic  enough  to  see,  that  the  baptizing  of  a 
man,  and  all  his,  and  likewise  of  this  and  the  other  household,  is  by 
no  means  agreealjle  to  the  plan,  and  that  it  has  no  resemblance  to  the^ 
practice  of  the  Baptists. 


LVr.tYT  BJPTI2M.  49 

It  is  in  this  "way  I  consider  these  accounts  of  baptiziiifj  as  having; 
weight  in  the  present  inquiry.  Here  are  facts  recorded,  relative  to 
baptizing  ;  I  take  these  facts,  and  connpare  them  v.  ith  the  proceedings 
of  different  baptizers ;  and  I  fnul  they  will  not  a-^-ree  to  one  class, 
but  very  well  v/ith  the  other  ;  I,  therefore,  am  led  to  conclude  that 
Uiat  class  of  baptizers  agiee  best  to  tl;e  primitive  practice,  to  whom 
these  facts  Vviil  best  agree.  For,  as  the  practice  of  the  ApoiUes  hds 
no  affinity  with  that  of  the  Baptists,  it  is  very  reai:onabie  to  hifer  that 
their  views  of  the  subject  could  not  be  \he  same. 

This  being  the  last  corroborating  argument  I  mean  to  bring,  I  will 
collect  the  force  of  the  v/hoie  into  one  viev/.  The  whole  defence  of 
infants  rests  on  tv/o  arguments : — 1.  That  God  did  constitute  in  his 
church  the  membership  of  iiiiants,  and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  relig- 
ious ordinance. — 2.  That  the  liglit  of  infants  to  church  membership 
was  never  taken  away :  The  consequence  of  which  is,  that  their  riglit 
to  membership  continues  to  the  present  moment.  The  first  of  these 
arguments  is  granted  by  the  Baptists  themselves.  The  ether  I  have 
evinced  from  five  topics  :  1.  From  God's  dispensation  towards  the 
Gentiles,  in  forming  them  into  a  church  state.  2.  That  God  never 
did,  by  aiiy  law,  take  away  that  right  which  had  been  before  granted 
to  irifants.  3.  That  none  of  the  Jews  had  any  apprehension  of  tliC 
rejection  of  infants,  which  they  must  have  had,  if  infants  had  been 
rejected.  4.  That  Jesus  Christ  spake  of  them  as  visibly  belonging  to 
the  church,  and  to  himself,  as  the  head  of  the  church  :  And  that  th€> 
Apostle  Peter  placed  them  in  the  same  relation  to  baptism,  as  they  had 
been  before  to  circumcision.  5.  That  tiie  Apostle  Paul,  in  baptizing 
whole  families,  acted  agretable  to,  arid  so  evinced  the  validity  of,  all  the 
preceding  argumen ts . 

The  evident  result  of  the  whole  is,  that  infants,  according  to  di- 
vine appointment,  have  a  right  to  church  membership,  to  the  present 
hour.  Then,  tlie  only  question  that  remains,  arid  by  answering  of 
which,  I  shall  be  brought  to  the  close  of  the  inquiry,  is  this :  liavo 
infants  (any  infants,  for  I  take  them  indelmitely)  any  right  to  chris- 
tian baptism  ?  To  this  I  reply,  1 .  That  those  persons  which  have  a 
right  to  be  members,  should  certainly  be  admitted  to  mem.bership  ; 
i.  e.  solemnly  recognized.  And  Vaq  reason  is,  because  every  cne 
should  have  his  right.  2.  If  persons,  wiio  have  a  right  to  be  mem- 
bers, should  be  received  to  memberohip  ;  then,  they  are  to  be  received, 
either  without  baptism,  or  vvith  it.  1  suppose  none  will  say  they  are  to 
be  received  without  baptism  ;  for  then,  if  one  may  be  so  received,  so 
may  ail,  and  thus  baptism  will  be  excluded.  I  expect  no  opposition 
from  a  Baptist  in  this  place.  For  if  the  right  of  infants  to  member- 
ship be  once  evinced,  the  oppositioii  of  a  Baptist  is  over.  And  there- 
fore, if  he  be  able  to  do  any  thing  in  this  controversy,  it  must  be  done 
before  it  comes  to  this.  On  the  other  hand,  if  no  person  is  to  be 
received  to  membership  v/ltiiout  baptism  ;  then  every  one,  who  sliould 
be  received,  m.ust  of  necessity  be  baptized.  And  so  the  concluson  of 
the  whole  yrAi  be  this  :  Since  infants,  therefore,  have  a  riglit  to 
membership,  and  all  v/ho  have  such  right  must  be  received  as  members, 
and  none  should  be  received  without  being  baptized ;  then  it  follows, 
that  as  infants  have  a  right  to  be  received,  they  must  also  have  a  right  to 
be  baptized  ;•  because  thev  cannot  be  received  v/itliout  baptism. 

G 


CHAPTER  III. 

JlIaving  advanced  what  I  judged  essential  on  both  sides,  I  will 
now,  agreeable  to  my  design,  give  the  reader  a  scheme  of  the  v/hole. 
By  this  scheme  the  reader  will  be  able  to  discover  what  is  common  to 
bothsides,  and  what  is  the  neat  force  of  each.  It  was  in  this  way,  the 
subject  presented  itself  to  my  mind,  when  I  was  led  a  second  time  to 
take  it  under  consideration.  And  I  persuade  myself,  that,  by  adopting 
this  method,  the  reader  will  be  more  capable  of  judging,  in  this  contro- 
verted question,  which  side  of  the  two  is  the  stronger,  and  consequently 
which  is  the  true  one.  I  will  place  the  v/hole  on  one  page,  that  the  read- 
er may  have  it  at  once  under  his  eye.  I  shall  place  those  Scriptin-es, 
that  weigh  equal  on  both  sides,  at  the  top  of  the  page  ;  and  the  argu- 
ment against  infant  baptism  in  one  column,  and  those  for  their  baptism 
in  the  other.  I  do  this,  because  I  know  of  no  method  more  fair,  or 
more  calculated  to  lead  to  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 


SCHEME  OF  THE  COJVTROFERSY,  U'c, 


i5i 


A  Scheme  of  the  Controverfy  on  Baptifm. 

I.  Those  places  of  Scripture  which  are  common  to  both  sides,  viz. 
Baptists  and  Paidobaptists.  Matt.  iii.  6.  "  And  were  baptized  of 
him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  iVIark,  xvi.  16.  "He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  Acts,  ii.  41.  "  Then  they 
that  g-Iadly  received  his  word,  were  baptized."  Acts,  viii.  27. 
"  And  Philip  said,  if  thou  beiievest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
anaycst,"  Sec. 

}\\  B.  The  places,  and  others  of  the  same  kind,  as  they  prove  the 
baptism  of  an  adult  to  be  r'v^hU  are  expressive  of  the  sentiment  of 
Baptists  and  Pxdobaptists  with  respect  to  an  adult  subject :  For  both 
think  it  right  to  baptize  an  adult.  And  as  they  prove  equally  on  both 
iiides,  they  cannot  be  urged  by  either  party  against  the  other. 

II.  Those  arguments,  which  are  peculiar  to  each,  compared. 

jY,  B.  The  question  is  not  of  adults,  in  this  both  are  agreed :  But 
*'  Arc  infants  to  be  baptized  ?" 


.drguments  agaitfit  Trfant  Bajiiis7n. 

1.  Whoever  has  a  right  to  a 
positive  ordinance  must  be  ex- 
pressly mentioned,  as  having  that 
ric>'ht ;  but  infants  are  not  so  men- 
tioned,  with  respect  to  baptism ; 
Therefore  infants  are  not  to  be 
baptized. 

2.  The  Scriptures  require  faith 
and  repentance,  in  ordei-  to  bap- 
tism ;  but  infants  have  not  faith 
ov  repentance  :  Tiierefore  infants 
are  not  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. 


Ar'^uments  for  Ivfant  Bajitism, 

1.  God  has  constituted  in  his 
church  the  membership  of  infants, 
and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  re- 
ligious rite. 

2.  The  church  membership  of 
infants  was  never  set  aside,  by 
God  or  man  :  and  consequently 
continues  in  force  to  the  present 
day. 

.A/*.  B,  The  Baptists  admit  the 
first.  The  other  is,  by  a  variety 
of  evidence,  clearly  evinced. 

Coroll. ds  God  has  constituted 

infants  church  members^  they  should 
be  received  to  member shifi^  because 
God  has  constituted  it. 

Dilemma. — Since  infants  must  be 
received  to  membershiji  ;  they  must 
be  received  without  baptism,  or  with 
it :  But  none  must  be  received  with^ 
out  buldism  :  and,  therefore,  as  in- 
fants must  be  received,  they  must  of 
nccesisity  be  bajitiztd. 


52  SCHEME  OF  THE  COA'TROVERSY 

I  shall  now  only  make  a  few  remarks,  on  the  sclicnie  ci  the  con- 
troversy, and  so  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject. 

1,  At  the  topof  ti>e  pa?;e,  I  have  cited  some  passap:es  of  Scripture 
which  support  the  sentiment  of  both  parties,  that  is,  the  propriety  of 
bapdzinii;  an  adult  professing-  £\ith,  See.  These,  and  such  like  Scrip- 
tures, which  for  want  of  room  I  have  not  set  dov/n,  prove  as  much  on 
one  side  as  on  the  other :  And,  tlierefore,  I  have  said  they  are  com- 
mon to  both  parties.  Pvly  desij^n  in  piacini^  them  at  the  head  of  the 
scheme,  is  to  detect  an  error  incident  to  Baptists  in  general ;  namely, 
a  supposition  that  such  texts  prove  only  en  their  side,  and  against  the 
seritiments  of  Padobaptists.  I  ha'e  observed  this  error,  in  every  Bap- 
tist with  whom  I  have  conversed,  both  before  and  since  niy  present 
sentiments  have  been  known.  I  once  asked  a  v/orthy  Baptist  minis- 
ter, wliat  he  thought  were  tlie  strongest  arguments  against  Picdo- 
baptists  ?  Hq  immediately  had  recourse  to  such  passages  as  are  set 
down  in  the  scheme.  I  told  him,  that  these  were  so  far  from  being 
the  strongest,  thai  they  were  no  arguments  at  all  against  Pxdobap- 
tists  ;  but  rather  proved  on  their  side,  in  common  v/ith  Baptists.  IMy 
friend  wondering  at  this,  I  observed,  that  Pcedobaptists  as  well  as 
Baptists  held  adult  baptism  ;  and  as  these  passages  cnly  prove  adult 
baptism,  they  prove  nothing  more  than  what  is  lield  by  both.  When 
I  had  made  the  matter  suBlcicntly  plain,  cur  conversation  on  this  sub- 
ject ended.  He,  however,  called  on  me  the  next  day,  and  said,  I  am 
really  surprised  at  what  you  said  yesteidriVj  and  could-  hardly  sleep 
for  thinking  of  it. 

The  error  I  am  guarding  ngainsf;,  is  that  of  claiming  an  exclusive 
right  to  those  Scriptures,  which  do  not  exclusively  belong  to  them. 
It  is  by  means  of  this  common  error,  that  the  Baptist  cause  is  main- 
tained ;  for  it  gives  it  tlie  appearance  of  strength,  w]\en  in  reality  it 
has  none.  Pvlr.  Booth  sliall  come  forward  as  an  example,  since  he  is 
as  deeply  tinctured  v/ith  this  error  as  any  of  his  brethren.  In  vol.  ii. 
p.  415,  he  says,  ""  The  Baptists  have  no  creed  of  subterfuge  to  evade 
the  force  of  any  argument  formed  upon  it  [I  Cor,  vii.  14-,]  is  plain, 
I  humbly  conceive,  from  the  preceding  rejections.  No,  while  they 
have  both  precept  and  example  on  their  side,"  c^c.—- Both  precept 
and  example  on  their  side  !  Tliis  looks  very  formidable  indeed  ;  but 
let  us  examine  the  phrase.  Fray,  INIr.  Booth,  what  do  you  mean  by 
the  Baptists'  side  ?  Do  you  mean  adult  baptism  i  if  you  mean  this, 
it  is  only  passing  a  deception  upon  the  reader  ;  for  you  must  know 
that  Paidobaptists  liave  no  dispute  with  you  upon  that  subject.  You 
certainly  know  that  they  both  hold  and  practise  adult  baptism  ?3  vvcll 
as  you,  and  that  what  you  call  your  side  is  no  more  your's  than  it  is 
their's.  But  do  you  mean  the  denial  Cf  infant  baptism?  This  you 
shcula  mean  when  you  distinguish  your  side  from  their's  ;  for  herein 
it  is  that  you  and  Psedobaptists  take  dllierent  sides,  seeijig  thoy  aftirm, 
and  you  deny,  that  infants  are  fit  subjects  of  baptism.  If  so,  then 
you  aHirm  thi  t  Eapasts  have  both  precept  and  example  for  the  denial 
of  infynt  baptism,  ^/hich  is  indeed  properly  your  side.  No,  Sir,  very 
far  from  it  ;  you  have  neither  precept  nor  example,  on  your  side,  i\i 
all  the  word  of  God.  You  have  nothing  in  the  world  on  your  side, 
as  you  are  pleased  to  call  it,  but  tv/o  poor  sophisms,  i.  c.  a  prjr  of 


I 


O.V  BAPTISM.  53 

bad,  very  bad  arguments,  which  I  have  placed  togetlier  in  one  col- 
mnn. 

But  the  truth  is,  when  you  speak  in  so  lofty  a  tone  of  the  Bap- 
tists' side,  as  having*  both  precept  and  example,  you  only  mean  that 
adult  baptism  has  tliese.  Pray,  Sir,  do  you  and  Paidobaptists  take 
opposite  sides  on  the  article  of  adult  baptism  ?  If  not,  why  is  it  your 
side  so  peculiarly  ?  Yon  have  said  in  this  quotation  that  the  Baptists 
have  no  need  of  subterfuge  :  Ciood  Sir,  what  is  a  sublerhige  ?  Is  it 
an  evasion — a  deception  ?  Why  do  you  call  that  your  side  exclusively, 
which  is  no  more  your  side  than  it  is  the  side  of  the  Pxdobaptists  ? 
Was  it  because  your  own  real  side  [the  denial  of  iniant  baptism]  was 
weak?  And  did  you  wish,  by  a  dextrous  shift,  to  make  it  pass  for 
strong  ?  Pr.iy  Mr.  B.  is  not  this  a  subterfuge  ?  It  is  very  extraordi- 
nary that  you  should  fiy  to  a  subterfuge,  and  in  that  very  place  too 
where  you  say  the  Baptists  do  not  need  any.  And  v/hereas  most  dis- 
putants make  use  of  subterfuges  only  when  they  actually  need  them, 
\ou  mr^st  be  a  genius  of  a  very  peculiar  cast  indeed,  to  make  use  of 
a  subterfuge,  when,  as  you  yourself  say,  there  is  in  reality  no  need  of 
any  such  thing. 

By  this  the  reader  may  perceive  hov;  necessary  it  is  to  keep  these 
things  clear  in  his  own  mind,  if  he  v/ishes  to  form  a  judgment  on  this 
subject  according  to  truth  ;  for  though  the  Baptist  side  has  in  reality 
no  strength  at  all,  yet  it  accpiires  the  appearance  of  it  from  the  mis- 
representation v.'hich  I  have  endeavored  to  expose.  I  have,  therefore, 
been  the  more  desirous  of  placing  this  matter  in  a  fair  light ;  because, 
though  frequently  called  to  speak  on  the  subject,  I  was  not  for  some 
years  aware  of  the  deception.  Let  the  reader  keep  in  view  those 
Scriptures  at  the  top  of  the  Scheme,  which  weigh  equally  on  both 
sides,  while  1  pass  to  the  two  columns,  where  the  arguments  of  both 
are  placed  in  opposition  to  each  other  ;  and  by  comparing  these,  v/e 
shall  see  which  is  the  stronger,  arid  therefore,  v/hicii  is  the  true  side 
of  the  question. 

2.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  Scheme,  he  will  see,  on  the  left 
column,  what  is  the  neat  strength  of  the  Baptist  side,  and  what  argu- 
ments they  produce  against  the  baptism  of  infants.  I  have  there  set 
down  two  argmnents  which  are  urged  by  Baptists  :  The  one 
taken  from  a  vvant  of  express  precept  or  example  to.  baptize  in- 
fants ;  the  other  from  their  want  of  capacity  to  believe  and  repent, 
Sec.  These  two  are  tiie  only  arguments  they  can  produce  ;  and  if 
they  are  not  good,  they  have  nothing  good  to  urge.  Witli  respect 
to  the  first,  that  there  is  no  express  command  or  example  for  bap- 
tizing infants,  the  same  is  true  respecting  female  communion  ;  and  so 
this  argum.ent,  if  it  were  good,  vvould  have  a  double  effect:  It  would 
exclude  infants  from  baptism,  and  females  from  the  Lord's  supper. 
And  then  the  Baptists  would  be  right  in  refusing  to  baptize  iriiants, 
but,  at  the  same  time,  they  would  be  v»rong  in  admitting  females  to 
the  Lord's  supper  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  if  v.  omen  have  a  right  to  the 
Lord's  table,  though  there  be  no  express  law  or  example  for  their  ad- 
mission, then  the  argumerit  is  lyood  for  nothing.  I  shall  say  more 
\ipon  t-ins  wliQTi  I  ccme  to  examine  Mr.  B's.  defence  of  female  com- 
munion. 


U'  :iCHEM£  OF  Tin:  COS^rTROyrni^Y 

As  to  tlie  other  ar^jument,  T  nietin  that  taken  from  the  incapacit/ 
<>i  inl"«,:;is  to  believe  and  repent,  it  io  ncthinjj  more  than  a  sophisnri. 
I  have  discovered  its  fallacy  by  apply in<j  it  to  dilTerent  casco  ;  and  'm 
tile  same  way  that  it  proved  ai^-amst  infant  baptism,  it  wonld  have 
proved  ag-ainh,t  intant  circiimcibion — ai^ainsc  the  baptism  ui  Christ — 
ai^idnst  tiie  temporcd  subsistence  of  intants — and,  lastly,  against  their 
eternal  salvation.  I  have  likewise  shov/n  wherein  its  fallacy  con sistcC', 
viz.  in  brin<>rtjg'  more  into  the  conclusion  than  was  in  the  premises  :  Ali 
this  the  reader  may  observe  by  recurrin^^  to  the  pjo.ce  where  it  is  ex- 
uinined.  The  c(msequen«ii;  is,  thai  the  Baptists  have  nothing  to  place 
a;^-ains:  infant  baptism  but  two  misound,  sophistical,  deceitful  argu- 
ments. Tills  is  the  sum  total  of  the  Baptist  side  ;  but  if  any  Bapti^^t 
think  he  .s  able  either  to  maintain  these  two  arg'uments.  or  to  produce 
any  thing  better,  I  seriously  invite  him  to  the  task. 

o.  On  the  opposite  coiunui  I  have  placed  the  ar^-uments  for  irif^nt 
baptism.  Then*  order  is  the  most  simple,  and  the  whole  consists  of 
three  parts  :  1.  That  God  formed  a  church  on  earth,  and  constitut- 
ed infants  members  of  that  church  :- — :2.  That  the  membership  of  in- 
jlmVs,  from  that  time  to  this,  has  never  been  set  aside  by  any  order 
of  God  ;  consequently  it  still  remains  : — -3.  Tliat  as  infants  have  a  di- 
vine riglit  to  membership,  tl\ey  must  be  received  as  members  ;  and  as 
tney  must  noi  be  received  v.ithout  being;  baptized,  they  must  be  bap- 
lized  in  order  to  be  received. 

Tnese  are  the  ari;uments  in  one  column,  v/hich  are  to  be  compared 
with  tnose  two  on  the  Baptist  side  in  the  other  ;  and  by  comparinj^ 
them  to:j;ethcr,  the  reader  may  see  on  vv'hich  side  tlie  evidence  ]n-e- 
ponder^tes,  and  constfjuentiy  on  which  side  tiie  truth  actually  lies. 
There  are  three  parts  c/a  the  right  column,  which  link  into  each  oth- 
er) and  form  a  stronv^-  cliain  of  evidence,  to  be  placed  in  opposition  to 
Ivro  fcdsc  sopiiistical  argun-ients,  which  constitute  the  wdioie  force  on 
the  Baptist  side  ;  that  is,  there  is  sornethhig  to  be  placed  af^ainst 
nothing — substantial  evidence  against  a  pair  of  sophisms  :  And  this 
is  to  be  (Xont^  that  the  reader  may  see  which  has  the  stronger  sid<', 
and  vvlrich  the  true.  As  iar  as  concerns  myself,  1  only  ;-ay  i  have, 
;xfter  many  supplications  for  tlie  best  teaching,  examined,  compared, 
and  decided,  and  am  well  satisiicd  with  the  decision  :  The  reader,  il' 
h.e  be  a  man  tearing  God,  will  go  and  do  likewise. — So  nmch  for  tl'.e 
comparison  ;  a  lev/  v/ords  on  thv'  evidence,  by  itself,  v.ili  hnish  this 
part  of  the  business. 

The  nature  of  this  proof,  on  tiie  side  of  infants,  is  such,  that  Ba]> 
iists  can  on]/  attack  it  in  one  part :  e.g.  If  I  aTirm,  as  iij  the  first  part, 
that  God  did  constitute  infant  members  of  his  church,  the  Baptiits 
j^rant  they  were  once  church  niembers.  if  I  affirm,  as  in  the  thirtl, 
ihut  every  one  who  has  a  right  to  be  a  church  member,  has  a  right  to 
he  baptized,  they  are  compeded  to  grant  that  too.  So  there  remains 
Lut  one  point  on  whicii  a  Baptist  can  form  an  attack,  and  that  is  the 
?>ceond  p-art,  \»herein  i  say,  tiiat  the  church  membership  of  iniants 
iiaving  been  onc6  an  institadon  of  God,  it  was  never  set  aside  eithei- 
by  God  iniincdiately,  or  by  any  man  acting  under  the  authority  of 
God..  I'iuii  is  the  point  then  that  decides  the  question. — I  will  spend 
'p.  few  words  in  vindicatin:^  t''  i^  turning  njin;  ar„-ain3t  the  ar^W!n::7itiiv}. 
ud  hj::i;;ian  ri^ade  use  of  bv  Mr.  Dccth.  ' 


'SM. 


■  .> 


In  nvippoit  of  tMs  I  have  arg-iTcd  from  five  topics  :  Coci's  mel'ioc! 
•<\  actii>i^  in  brliijnnf^  the  GcDtiJes  into  a  church  state  ; — there  never 
v.is  a  la\y  of  God  to  set  their  members'! ip  aside  ; — the  vTev.s,  iiv 
'  hrist's*  time,  h?.d  no  appreiicnsion  of  any  such  thing  ; — Christ  f:]^oke 
of  infants  as  actually  bfch}nc^in{;  to  the  church,  and  his  Apostle  pl.iccd 
them  in  the  same  relation  tf> baptism  as  they  had  been  in  to  circunicis- 
ion  ; — and  St.  Pan!,  in  conformity  to  this  srhcme,  baptized  familicc, 
]>artic'.\ktr(y  the  jailei'  and  iuX  his  straight  vay.  Iiach  of  these  is  al- 
ready set  forth.,  vrA  evinced  in  its  proper  j^hice. 

But  what  do  tiic  Baptists  place  ac^ainst  this  evidence  ?  Mr.  Booth., 
in  answering  Dr.  Williams  on  this  subject,  does  neither  produce  one 
Scripture  to  prove  that  the  church  members-iip  of  infants,  -which  he 
grants  to  have  existed  once,  vras  ever  set  aside,  nor  docs  he  answer 
those  Scrii)t^;res  v.'hich  the  Doctor  ha.d  alledged  to  evince  the  con-' 
tinuancc  of  their  membership.  What  then  does  Prlr.  B.  do  t  WJic-^ 
ever  v,  ill  be  at  the  pains  to  read  liis  books,  will  iind  hi':«  mode  of  reas- 
oning to  be  of  this  kind.  He  instances  a  variety  cf  things  belong-ing 
to  the  Jewish  ch.urch,  such  as  its  being  national — its  priesthood — its 
tithes — its  various  purifications — its  holy  places,  holy  garments.  Sec. ; 
and  then  argues  m.ost  erroneously,  that  as  these  things  are  done  away, 
the  membership  of  iiifants  must  he  done  avray  toe.  This,  I  say,  is 
the  mode  or  his  arguing,  and  indeed  the  only  argument  he  brings,  as 
may  be  seen  by  any  one  who  rends  his  works  with  care.  Now  tliis- 
reasoning  of  his  is  guilty  of  a  very  egregious  aljsurdity,  and  a  very 
material  error  in  point  of  chronology. 

I.  A  very  egregious  absru'dity.  Mr.  B.  seems  to  consider  the  va- 
rious rites,  Sec.  of  the  Jewish  church  as  being  so  incorporated  and  in- 
terwoven vrith  the  iTiembers  of  that  church,  that  the  rites  and  they 
become  essentially  the  same  ;  and  then,  if  the  rites  be  taken  away, 
he  fancies  that  the  very  essoinee  of  the  church  is  so  destroyed  cr  alter- 
ed, that  infant  membership  is  gone  of  coiu'se.  Let  any  one  v.  eigli 
Mr.  B's.  reasoning  in  vol.  ii.  p.  ST,  and  understand  him  on  any  other 
than  this  absurd  principle  if  he  can.  "  An  A^postle,"  says  hf>,  "  hag- 
taug-ht  us,  that  tlie  ancient  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  ti?j\g 
of  necessity  a  change  also  in  the  law.  That  is,  as  Dr.  Owen  explaiiis- 
it,  the  whole  law  of  comjnandments  contained  in  ordinances,  rr  the 
whole  law  of  Moses,  so  far  as  It  was  a  rule  of  worship  and  o]>edience 
imto  the  cimrch  ;  for  that  law  it  is  that  follov/cth  tlie  I'ates  of  the 
priesthood."  Very  well.  That  law  was  changed,  whicli  Avas  a  nile 
of  wors'nip  and  obedience  to  the  cliurch  ;  but  what  has  this  to  do  with 
changing  the  church  ?  Is  a  church  changed  because  the  rule,  Mhich 
directed  its  worship,  is  changed  ?  I  wonder  much  why  Dr.  Owen  ii 
here  introduced,  unless  it  be  to  pass  off  an  absurdity  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  a  great  name  ;  as  nothing  can  be  more  contraiy  to  what  ?»ir. 
B.  is  going  to  say  thaii  this  quotation  from  the  Doctor. 

Now  see  Ivir.  B's.  curious  reasoning.  "  We  m.ay  therefore  adopt 
(he  siiould  have  said,  corrupt)  the  sacred  writer's  principle  cf  reason- 
ing, and  say,  the  constitution  of  tlie  visible  church  being  manife':tly 
and  essentially  altered,  the  law,  relating  to  qualiScations  for  commun- 
ion in  it,  must  cf  necessity  be  changed.  Consecpiently  no  valid  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  from  the  membership  of  infants^  under  the  for- 


56  SCHEME  OF  THE  CO.YTROVERSY 

nier  dispensation,  to  a  similarity  of  externa]  privilege  under  the  new 
covenant."  Now  in  what  way  could  the  constitution  of  the  church 
be  essentially  altered  by  a  change  in  the  law  of  ordinances,  unless  up- 
on that  absurd  idea  that  the  ordinances  and  members  were  so  com- 
pounded and  incorporated  v/iLh  each  other,  as  to  form,  in  this  incor- 
porated state,  the  very  essence  of  the  church  ? 

One  thing  we  may  remark  in  this  quotation,  which  is  that  Mr.  B. 
grants  infants  to  have  been  church  members  under  the  former  dispen- 
sation. This  is  granting  my  first  argum.ent  for  infant  baptism  ;  there 
is  only  one  more  to  be  maintained,  viz.  That  the  membership  cf  in- 
fants has  never  been  annulled  ;  and  this  being  evinced,  the  opposition 
cf  a  Baptist  is  at  an  end,  since  he  cannot  by  any  means  deny  the  con- 
clusion. And  now  the  whole  debate  is  brought  into  this  narrow 
limit — has  the,  church  membership  of  infants  at  any  time  been  set 
aside,  or  has  it  not  ?  I  have  advanced  five  argum.ents  to*  prove  it  never 
ha-s  been  set  aside.  Mr.  B.  says  it  has.  If  you  ask  him  to  prove  it, 
he  tells  you  "  the  constitution  of  the  visible  church  is  manifestly  and 
essentially  altered."  If  you  ask  him  how  he  proves  this  essential  al- 
teration ?  he  tells  you  that  tithes,  and  purifications,  and  priesthocd, 
and  other  things  of  this  kind  belonging  to  the  Mosaic  code,  are 
changed  or  taken  away  ;  and  then  most  absurdly  infers,  that  infant 
membership  is  taken  away  too  :  As  if  a  member  cf  a  church  and  a 
Mosaic  rite  had  been  the  same  ;  as  if  iniant  membership,  which  was 
long  before  Moses,  had  been  nothing  mere  than  a  Mosaic  rite.  But 
let  us  observe  how  grandly  he  reasons  down  infant  membership. 

"  We  may,  therefore,"  says  he,  "  adopt  the  sacred  writer's  principle 
of  reasoning,  and  say." — I  have  been  at  some  pains  to  inform  myself 
respecting  this  sentence — whether  Mr.  B.  meant  to  imitate  the  Apos- 
tle's phraseology,  or  to  reason  after  the  same  method,  or  to  reason 
from  the  Apostle's  datum  or  principle,  viz.  "  the  priesthood  being 
changed."  I  was  at  length  inclined  to  view  the  latter  as  his  meaning  ; 
because  it  seemed  too  trivial  to  tell  the  reader  in  that  pompous  way, 
*'  We  may  adopt  the  sacred  writer's  principle  of  reasoning,"  when 
nothing  more  was  meant  but  imitation  of  phraseology.  For  the  same 
reason  I  thought  he  could  not  mean  an  imitation  of  the  Apostle's 
method,  for  that  would  be  only  saying,  he  should  lay  down  a  datum 
as  the  Apostle  had  done,  and  then  drav/  an  inference  as  the  Apostle 
did.  All  this  is  very  well,  and  sccundein  artem  ;  but  then  he  might  as 
well  have  told  the  reader  that  he  v/ould  adopt  Aristotle's  principle  cf 
reasoning  as  the  sacred  v/riter's.  For  if  Mr.  B.  only  meant  that  he 
would  lay  down  a  datum  or  principle  to  begin  with,  and  then  proceed 
to  infer,  it  can  signify  nothing  to  any  man  living  unless  his  datum  be 
a  true  one.  And  if  this  be  all,  he  need  not  have  introduced  it  v/ith 
such  pomp  as  "  the  sacred  writer's  principle  of  reasoning  ;"  for  what 
other  would  any  person  adept  unless  he  were  an  ideot  ?  This,  as  well 
as  tjie  other,  being  too  trifling  to  be  Mr.  B's.  meaningf,  I  therefore 
concluded  he  meant  to  adopt  the  Apostle's  datum,  viz.  "  The  priest- 
hood being  changed,"  and  from  thence  to  drav/  an  inference  against 
infimts.  1  was  the  m.ore  inclined  to  think  he  intended  this,  since  lie 
had  just  cited  the  Apostle's  Avords  and  Dr.  Owen's  explanation  of 
them  ;  and  this  being  done,  he  immediately  proceeds  to  adopt. 


O.V  BJPTISM.  57 

The  Apostle  docs  indeed  say,  "  The  priesthood  betnr;  changed, 
there  is  made  of  necessity  a  chwir^e  also  of  the  law."  The  priesthood 
implied  servants  of  the  church  to  minister  in  holy  thiiiifs  ;  the  la\v 
was  a  commandment  contained  in  ordinances,  and  was,  as  Dv.  Owen 
5iaid,  a  rule  of  worship  ai,d  obedience  to  the  church.  The  piiests 
who  were  to  n)inister,  and  the  law,  which  was  to  reeulatc,  were  both 
chang-ed :  The  law  was  changed  in  consequence  of  a  cliange  in  the 
priesthood.  Well,  and  v/hat  then  ?  Why,  according  to  Mr.  B. 
the  argument  will  run  thus  :  The  priests  wjre  changed,  and  the  rule 
of  worship  was  chang-ed,  therefore  the  churcii  was  essentially  altered, 
therefore  infants  were  excluded. — Is  not  this  a  good  inference,  the 
priests  were  changed,  therefore  infants  were  excommunicated  ?  It 
might  have  been  so  if  the  priests  had  all  been  infants  ;  but  even  then 
it  would  only  have  concluded  against  infant  priests.  Every  argument 
Mr.  B.  has  brought  against  the  continuance  of  infant  cliurch  mem- 
bership is  of  the  same  kind — tithes,  puriiications,  lioly  places,  ^c. 
and  of  these  the  reader  may  take  which  he  pleases.;  and  infer  accord- 
ingly. Tithes  are  abrogated,  therefore  inumts  are  excluded.  Puri- 
fications are  set  aside,  therefore  infants  are  shut  out.  Holy  phices, 
Sec.  are  no  more,  therefore — not  so  fast — if  Mr.  B.  is  to  make  good 
his  conclusion  against  the  perpetuity  of  infant  membership  from  that 
datum  of  the  Apostle,  "•  The  priesthood  being  changed,"  let  him 
have  the  liberty  of  wording  liis  own  arguiiient — I  have  no  cbjecti&ii 
to  this — let  him  proceed. 

"  The  constitution  of  the  visible  cliurch  being  essentially  altered" 
— Stop — Pray,  Sir,  is  this  the  Apostle's  principle  of  reasoning  ? 
Do  you,  by  that  sentence,  mean  the  same  as  is  expressed  by  the  Apos- 
tle, "  The  priesthood  being  ciianged  r"  If  you  do,  I  will  not  con- 
tend for  a  word — Proceed — '"'•  The  constitution  of  the  visible  church 
[that  is,  the  priesthood]  being  essentially  altered  or  changed,  the  law, 
relating  to  qualiacations  for  comniunion  in  it  [that  is,  in  the  priest- 
hood] must  of  necessity  be  changed  :  Consecjuently  [because  the 
priesthood  is  changed]  no  valid  inference  can  be  drav/n  from  the 
membership  of  infants  [that  is,  in  the  priesthood]  under  the  former 
dispensation,  to  a  similarity  of  external  privilege  under  the  new  cove- 
nant." Bejie  conclusuin  est  a  clato  scripioris  nacri  !  And  an  excellent 
argument  it  is  against  ail  those  who  mean  to  bring  up  their  infants  to 
be  Jewish  priests. 

Ah^  aliqids  error  latet  I  Islw  B.  did  not  mean  to  concIn.de  so  :  He 
is  disputing  against  infant  baptism,  and  not  against  inla:U  priesthood. 
Very  well ;  but  then  he  must  have  a  very  different  datum.  He  is 
certainly  at  liberty  to  dispute  and  conclude  as  he  pleases,  only  let  him 
do  it  fairly.  I  certainly  supposed  he  was  reasoning  from  the  sacred 
v/riter's  principle — "  The  priesthood  being  changed  ;"  he  had  just 
quoted  it,  and  set  Dr.  Owen  to  expla'n  it,  and  said,  "  We  may  adopt 
it:"  But  that  principle,  as  to  infants,  only  concludes  against  an  infant 
priesthood,  which  was  not  the  thing  he  intended. 

Priests,  we  said,  were  servants  to  minister  to  the  church  in  holy 
things  ;  and  if  so,  tliere  is  a  wide  difference  bctv/een  the  priest! lood 
being  changed,  and  the  constitution  of  the  visible  church  (namely,  the 
mem!3er.i  that  constitute  it)  being  essentially  altered.     The  same  may 

H 


53  SCHEME  OF  THE  COXTROVERSY 

be  s'lid  of  all  tlie  instances  mentioned  by  Mr.  B.  ;  these  mi,5ht  rJi  be 
clia-oi'-ed  or  al3rogat2d,  and  yet  no  essential  alteration  take  place  in  the 
church,  that  is,  in  tlie  members  of  it  I  am  very  suspicious  that  Mr. 
B.  to  make  out  a  better  conclusion,  meant  to  pass  it  upon  the  reader^ 
that  the  Apostle's  expression,  "  the  {iricsthood  bc-lug  changed"  and 
thcit  cf  his,  ''''the  consiituUo7i  ofthevidhlc  church  being- e.'^sentiaUy  cdicred^'' 
were  of  the  same  import,  and  conveyed  precisely  the  same  idea.  If 
t:;is  was  really  his  design,  it  is  not  much  to  his  honor  ;  it  mufet  pro- 
ceed from  a  greater  love  to  hypothesis  than  to  truth,  or,  as  I  rather 
think,  it  arose  from  that  absuixl  idea  which  he  &eem.s  to  cnteilain — 
that  the  priesthood,  rites,  and  ordinances,  which  were  given  to  the 
church,  were  essentially  the  same  with  that  church  to  which  they 
were  given.  And  it  is  on  this  absurd  principle  that  his  opposition  to 
the  continuance  of  infant  membership  is  carried  on  ;  he  turns  tlie 
priesthood  into  a  church,  and  every  institute  into  an  infant,  and  theu 
contemplates  the  change  of  the  one,  and  the  removal  of  the  other. 
In  the  change  of  priesthood  he  sees  nothing  but  an  essential  change 
in  the  church,  and  fancies  the  removal  of  institutes  to  be  the  removal 
of  infants.  And  now  he  Mi]!  adopt  tlie  principle  of  the  sacred  v/riter  ; 
—The  priesthood  is  changed,  therefore  the  church  is  essentially  al- 
tered ;  this  institute  is  taken  away,  there  goes  an  infant ;  that  institute 
is  abrogated,  there  goes  another  iniiint ;  and  nov/  all  the  institutes  are 
gone,  and  now  all  the  infants  are  gone  ;  and  then,  says  he,  "  no  valid 
inference  can  be  dra\vn  from  the  membership  of  infants  under  the 
former  dispensation,  to  a  similarity  of  external  privilege  under  the 
new  co'/enant." — \Ve  vv^ili  nov/  leave  IMr.  B.  in  possession  of  his  ab- 
surdity, and  take  notice  of, 

II.  A  very  m.aterial  error  in  point  of  chronolcgy.  With  respect 
to  chronology,  most  persons  know  that  fi-om  the  time  of  Abraham 
to  that  cf  instituting  the  priesthood.  Mosaic  rites,  S^c.  we  may  reck- 
on about  four  hundred  years.  During  this  space  of  time,  the  church 
in  which  infants  were  members,  was  not  national ;  it  had  no  levitical 
priesthood,  there  was  no  institution  of  tithes,  nor  was  the  Mosaic  code 
of  rites  yet  formed.  Ail  we  know  of  the  church  is,  that  its  members 
consisted  of  a-dults  and  infants,  v/ho  were  initiated  by  the  same  rite  ; 
that  sacriiices  were  offered  ;  and,  it  is  probable,  that  the  father  of 
the  family,  or  some  respectable  person,  did  officiate  in  their  assem- 
blies as  a  priest.  Here  is  a  congregational  church,  a  simple  worship, 
and  some  creditable  officiating  priest. 

If  we  carry  our  views  forward,  we  shall  see  that  church,  which  at 
first  was  congregational,  become  a  national  church  ;  the  worship  that 
v/as  once  simple,  under  the  direction  of  the  Mosaic  code  ;  and  instead 
of  a  priest  ciiosen  by  the  people,  a  regular  priesthood  is  ordahied  of 
God.  Now  whether  we  view  the  congregational  or  national  ibi-m, 
the  simple  or  complex  worship,  the  irregular  or  regular  priesthood, 
"we  see  no  alteration  in  the  constitution  of  the  church,  much  less  an 
essential  one,  as  it  respected  the  members  of  v/hich  it  was  composed. 
If,  therefore,  the  passing  from  congregational  to  national,  from  a  sim- 
ple to  a  complex  worship,  from  an  irregular  to  a  regular  priesthood, 
produced  no  essential  alteration  in  the  church  members,  then  should 
«y[i  this  be  reversed,  should  there  be  a  clian^e  from  national  to  congre- 


OA'  BJPTISM.  59 

gational,  from  a  complex  to  a  sim])le  worship,  from  a  rcp;uiar  to  an 
h-regular  priestliood  ?  Every  man  in  his  senses  must  see  tJ.  U  this  can 
no  more  alter  the  esse.'ice  of  the  clijrch  than  the  other  did. 

Ail  this  is  plain  enough  to  any  man  except  Mr.  B.  ;  for,  accord- 
ing to  Jiis  mode  of  reasoning,  there  must  have  been,  from  tlie  beg-in- 
iiir.g,  I  know  not  how  many  essential  alterations  in  the  conr,dti5tiGnof 
the  visible  church  :  For  if,  as  he  will  have  it,  a  chaiigc  of  priesthood 
made  one  essential  change,  then  the  institution  of  the  same  priesthood 
must  have  made  another — so  there  were  tv\'o  changes.  And,  not  to 
say  any  thing  of  the  changes  from  Adam  to  Abraham,  wliat  became 
of  the  essence  of  tlie  church  when  the  functions  of  this  priesthood,  dur- 
ing the  captivity,  were  suspended?  For  if  the  changing  of  priest- 
hood did  essentially  alter  the  church,  the  institution  of  priestliood  must 
Iiave  done  the  same  ;  and  then  its  suspension  during  the  captivity, 
and  its  restoration  at  the  close  of  it,  must  have  made  two  more  ;  be- 
cause, according  to  Mr.  B's.  viev,'  of  things,  a  ch.ange  of  priestliood 
essentially  alters  the  church.  Such  is  the  absurd  idea  he  entertains 
concernine:  the  church  of  the  living:  God. 

I  observe  that  Mr.  E.  in  opposing  the  continuance  of  infant  mem- 
bership, takes  care  not  to  go  too  far  back  ;  the  period  of  Mosaic 
rites  suits  him  best,  and  there  he  fixes  :  For  this  ?rra,  as  he  vainly 
supposes,  furnishes  him  with  weapons  which  he  docs  not  sparingly 
use,  especially  against  a  dissenting  minir'.ter.  Here  he  iinds  not  only 
infant  membership,  but  a  national  church,  a  priesthood,  tithes,  and  in- 
stitutes of  various  kinds.  Nov^,  says  Mr.  B.  when  reasoning  with  a 
dissenting  minister,  (for  we  must  know  that  these  weapons  of  his 
would  be  esteemed  by  a  clergyman  as  rotten  wood)  now,  says  he,  "  If 
you  will  plead  for  the  continuarice  of  infant  membership,  which  I  grant 
to  have  existed,  you  must  also  admit  a  national  church  ;  you  must 
'^all  yourself  a  priest,  and  wear  holy  garments,  and  turn  your  commun- 
ion-table into  an  altar,  and  demand  tithes,  and  call  your  meeting  a 
holy  place."  But  why  all  tl-'s  ?  Because,  says  he,  all  these  things 
belonged  to  the  same  dispensation  as  infant  mem^bership  did  ;  and  so 
if  you  take  one,  you  must  even  take  all,  and  then  you  vrill  have  a  tol- 
erable body  of  Judaism. 

Now  before  we  rob  Mr.  B.  of  this  miserable  weapon,  I  v/ould  just 
observe  that  this  argument  of  his,  which  is  the  only  one  lie  has  got, 
is  what  is  called  ar^unicnitian  ad  honiincm  ;  and,  though  often  used,  it 
is  one  of  the  weakest  that  can  be  adopted.  It  is  calculated  to  make 
an  impression  on  some  mien,  v/hose  sentiments  may  be  of  a  peculiar 
cast  ;  but  if  the  same  be  turned  against  others  who  arc  of  a  different 
sentiment,  it  is  of  no  force  at  all  : — e.g.  IVir.  B's.  argument  has  the  ap- 
pearance of  strength,  if  used  against  a  dissenting  miriister  ;  because  he 
may  reject  the  idea  of  a  national  church,  priesthood,  tlie  right  of 
tithes,  Sec. ;  but  if  the  same  be  urged  against  a  clergyman  who  admits 
these,  all  its  ibrce  is  gone — it  is  even  good  for  nothing.  Tins  argu- 
ment derives  all  its  force  from  the  sentiments  of  the  person  against 
whom  it  is  used  ;  it  may  be  very  strong  against  one  man,  and  very 
we  ik  against  anothef  ;  it  v/ill  serve  to  support  error  as  well  as  trutli, 
and,  tiierefore,  when  it  is  a  solitary  argument,  no  dependance  who.tG.y-' 
er  c^n  be  placed  upon  it.  I  do  nt-Jt  mt-an  to  ciiscavd  the  I'se  of  it  in  all 
cajvs — I  grant  it  may  answ  '  ; 


&0  SCHEME   GF  THE  CGjXTRQVERSY 

but  tills  I  say,  it  should  never  l-^e  a  man's  only  jirgiiment  ;  for  that 
man's  cause  iiiustbe  miserably  poor  indeed  v/hich  depends  en  one  sc'- 
itary  argument  that  will  either  protect  truth  or  falsehood.  Just  such 
is  the  case  of  Mr.  B.  in  oppohing  the  continuance  of  infant  meniber- 
sliip  ;  and  I  wish  him  to  consider  seriously  Avhelher  such  kind  of  reas- 
oni.'ifj  is  fit  to  stand  against  a  plan  of  God. 

Now,  weak  as  this  ars^ument  is  in  itself,  there  is  one  thing  in  r>Ir. 
B's.  case  which  makes  it  still  worse  ;  he  is  indebted  for  the  use  of  it 
to  a  very  capital  absurdity.  As  he  is  not  able  to  prove  an  essential 
jilteration  in  the  constitution  of  the  church,  he  most  absurdly  suppos- 
es, or  seems  to  suppose,  that  members  and  religious  institutes  do  be- 
long to,  and  equally  constitute  the  essence  of  the  church  of  God  ;  for 
what  else  but  such  an, absurd  idea  could  induce  him  to  affirm  that  the 
church  was  essentially  altered,  and  so  infants  cut  oft",  merely  because 
the  institutes  of  the  church  v/ere  abrogated  ?  Now,  though  this  argu- 
ment of  his  is  so  exceedingly  weak,  and  the  principle  on  which  it  is 
built  so  very  absurd,  tliat  no  one  need  be  under  any  apprehension, 
sltould  it  remain  quietly  in  his  possession,  I  mean,  notwithstanding,  to 
take  the  liberty  of  changing  liis  place,  and  flzdng  him  in  that  station, 
wliere  he  shall  feel  himself  totally  deprived  of  its  assistance. 

Mr.  B.  must  certainly  know  that  the  national  form  of  the  church, 
the  institution  of  the  priesthood,  tithes,  and  other  Mosaic  ordinances, 
were  of  a  much  later  date  than  infant  church  membership.  I  take  the 
liberty,  therefore,  of  changing  Mr.  B's.  standing,  and  putting  him  as 
far  back  as  the  patriarchal  age,  the  times  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Ja- 
cob. And  now  having  placed  Mr.  B.  among  the  patriarchs,  I  wish 
him  to  take  a  view  of  their  ecclesiastical  an'Jrs,  and  to  indulge  me  at 
the  same  time  with  a  little  free  conversation  on  that  subject. 

Now,  Sir,  what  do  you  perceive  in  this  age  of  the  church  ?  Here 
you  see  the  venerable  patriarchs,  obedient  to  the  divine  order,  admit- 
tm^  infants  to  church  membership.  But  on  the  otiier  hand,  you  see 
here  no  national  church,  no  instituted  priesthood,  no  lav/  of  titles,  nor 
indeed  any  Mosaic  rites.  Your  favorite  argument  against  the  con- 
tinuance of  infont  membership,  derived  from  a  national  church,  the  le- 
vitical  priesthood,  tithes,  £cc.  is,  by  falling  back  about  the  space  of 
three  hundred  years,  fairly  and  irrecoverably  lost.  You  liad  formed 
so  close  a  connexion  between  infant  membership,  a  national  church, 
a  priesthood,  tithes,  and  Mosaic  rites  ;  as  if  they  all  rose  into  existence 
at  the  same  time,  and  were  all  to  expire  together.  But  here  they 
stand  entirely  apart  ;  infant  membership  is  in  no  alliance  wi<"h  a  na- 
tional church.,  is  totally  unconnected  with  Icvitical  priesthood,  and 
has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  Mosaic  institutes.  The  close  union  you 
fancied  existed  between  these  does  here  vanish  away.  And  nov,-,  Sir, 
what  will  you  do  with  a  dissenting  minister  in  this  case  ?  Your  argu- 
Tncntum  ad  hominem^  the  only  argument  ycu  had,  is  lost. 

Lost,  did  I  say  ? — Nay,  now  I  think  of  it,  it  is  not  lost  neither. 
Oh  no  1  so  far  from  it,  that  I  believe  I  can  put  you  in  a  way  where- 
by you  may  manage  your  matters  to  far  greater  advantage.  For 
though,  by  putting  you  back  to  the  patriarchal  age,  I  deprive  you  of 
tliose  topics  with  which  you  have  been  able  to  combat  a  dissenting 
minister,  viz.  a  national  church,  an  instituted  priesthocd.  Mosaic  rites, 
&c.  J  yet  all  is  not  lost,  ycu  vvill  here  fnid  topics,  which,   if  managed 


vvllli  dexterity,  v/lli  make  no  inconsiderable  im]i\'ession  on  a  clergy- 
man. You  observe,  Sir,  that  inftint  membership  hus  nothing  to  do 
with  a  national  church,  priesthood,  tithes,  &cc. ;  and  then,  should  any 
clergyman  rise  to  defend  the  continuance  of  infant  membership,  you 
nray  say  to  him,  INiy  good  Sir,  if  you  insist  upon  infant  church 
membership  now,  which  I  myself  grant  to  have  existed  hi  the  times  of 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  ;  pray  observe  the  consequence ;  you 
must  relinquish  the  idea  of  a  national  church,  you  must  cease  to  call 
yourself  a  priest,  you  must  lay  aside  your  holy  garments,  and  finally, 
you  must  give  up  all  your  tithes.  For,  if  you  Aviil  be  a  patriarchal 
professor  in  infant  membership,  you  must  be  so  in  every  thing  else. 
If  you  vrili  conform  to  the  patriarchs  in  one  particular ;  in  the  name 
of  consistency  and  common  honesty,  I  ask,  v/hy  are  you  not  a  con- 
formist in  every  particular  ? 

You  see,  Mr.  B,  that  this  is  argumeiitiim  ad  hounuem  against  a  cler- 
p;yman  v/ith  a  witness,  and  will  mxake  him  fed  according  to  its  im-pcrt- 
ance  ;  for  certainly  it  will  bring  him  into  as  great  a  diiliculty  as  your 
other  argument  of  the  same  kind  brought  Dr.  Wiliiams. — Well,  what 
a  happy  invention  !  Here  is  an  expedient,  by  which  you  will  be  able 
to  annoy  either  a  clerical,  or  a  ncii-con  opponent.  Before,  when  you 
fixed  your  station  among  the  Mosaic  rites,  you  could  only  act  with 
advantage  against  a  non-con  ;  but  now,  if  you  only  step  back  three 
hundred  yea.rs,  you  miay  employ  your  artillery  as  successfully  against 
a  clerical  antagonist.  And  thus  by  stepping  backward  or  forv/ard, 
according  to  the  cast  of  your  adversary,  which  is  a  thing  easily  done, 
you  will  have  it  in  your  pov>'er  to  urge  something  against  all  comers. 
This  is  one  of  the  best  inventions  in  the  world  for  your  cause  ;  for  as 
you  stand  forth  as  a  great  disputant  against  infant  m.em^bership,  it  is 
probable  yovi  will  meet  v/ith  antagonists  of  all  kinds.  This  expedi- 
ent, like  the  two  edges  of  a  svrord,  or  the  two  horns  of  a  dilemma, 
v>qil  enable  you  to  meet  an  adversary  at  all  points.  Sliould  you  at- 
tack a  dissenting  minister,  be  sure  you  fix  upon  Mosaic  rites  ;  but 
if  a  clergyman  should  prove  an  antagonist,  you  know  your  cue,  quit 
that  station,  and  fall  back  to  the  patriarchal  age  ;  and  so  by  humour- 
ing the  business,  you  will  be  a  match  for  both.  Excuse  my  officious- 
ness  in  suggcMing  any  tiling,  especially  to  you,  who  are  so  well  versed 
in  all  the  turns  of  disputation  ;  i  only  do  it  because  this  thought  seem- 
ed to  escape  you. 

Candid  Reader,  I  have  now  dene  with  this  part  of  the  subject, 
and  have  only  to  say,  that  of  ali  the  miserable  oppositions  that  were 
ever  set  up  against  an  ordinance  of  God,  I  mean  infant  membersh.ip 
in  its  perpetuity,  I  think  there  never  was  a  more  miserable  opposition 
than  this.  The  Baptists  grant  infant  church  membership  to  liave  ex- 
isted once.  I  have  aliirmed  that  it  still  exists  ;  and  this  being  proved, 
tile  opposition  of  a  Baptist  is  at  an  end.  I  have  argued  from  five  dif- 
ferent topics  in  proof  of  the  perpetuity  of  infant  membership.  Mr.  B. 
who  denies  this,  urges  ag-ainst  it  one  solitary  argument ;  and  th.at  even 
the  weakest  of  all  arguments,  the  argv.intiiium  ad  hominrin  ;  and  this 
same  solitary  v/eak  argument  is  founded  on  a  gross  absurdity  ;  and 
finally,  by  removing  Mr.  B.  from  the  Mosaic  ritjs  to  the  patriarchal 
age,  this  solitary,  absind  arg\micnt  vanishes  like  a  ghost,  arid  utterly 
forsakes  him. 


A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X. 


A    SHORT    METHOD    WITH    THE    BArTIT^TS. 


I 


T  is  a  certain  fa.ct,  th?-t  when  any  sentiment  is  false,  it  will  appear 
the  more  glaringly  so  the  more  it  is  examined,  and  the  farther  it  is 
dra%vn  out.  I  have  been  very  attentive  to  the  tendency  of  J/Ir. 
Booth's  reasoning,  and  have  pledged  myself  more  than  once  to  take 
some  notice  of  it.  When  a  vv^riter  does  not  wish  to  be  prolix  in  an- 
swering a  large  work,  it  is  best,  if  he  think  the  v/ork  erroneous,  to 
pitch  upon  some  prominent  parts,  in  which  tlie  fallacy  of  the  anther 
is  sufficiently  palpable  to  run  down  and  ruin  his  whole  syLtem.  I  will 
adopt  this  method  v/ith  Mr.  B's.  performance,  wherein  he  expresses 
the  sentiments,  and  pursues  the  reasoning  of  the  Baptists  in  general. 
It  is  his  second  edition  of  Pssdobaptism  examined,  to  which  my  at- 
tention will  be  chiefly  directed,  as  that  subject,  on  which  I  shall  more 
directly  animadvert,  is  not  handled  in  the  answer  to  Dr.  Williams, 
the  doctor,  in  his  piece,  having  urged  notliing  upon  it  :  And  indeed 
it  does  not  signify  which  of  Mr.  B's.  books  is  cpiot^id,  so  far  as  I  shall 
notice  him. 

The  sentiment  of  the  Baptists,  respecting  a  fit  suoject  of  the  bap- 
tismal ordinance,  divides  itself  into  two  parts  :  They  affirm  that  be- 
lieving adults  are  fit  subjects  of  baptism  ; — they  deny  that  baptism 
should  be  administered  to  infants.  When  supporting  what  they  af- 
firm, the  subject  runs  very  smoothly  :  and  no  man  that  I  know,  ex- 
cept perhaps  a  Quaker,  will  deny  the  conclusion.  For  my  own  part, 
I  am  as  v/eli  persuaded  that  a  believing  adult  is  a  fit  s>ibject  for  bap- 
tism as  ever  I  was  in  my  life  ;  and  I  neither  have,  nor  mean  to  say, 
one  word  against  it.  This  is  the  common  sentiment  of  Baptists  and 
Pxdobaptists,  and  is  not,  as  Mr.  B.  falsely  and  boastingly  calls  it,  the 
Baptists'  side.  As  far,  therefore,  as  the  proof  of  adult  baptism  goes, 
it  is  all  very  well,  and  exceedingly  plain  from  Scripture,  and  is  ad- 
mitted, without  dispute,  by  both  parties. 

But  v/hen  the  Baptists  are  brought  to  answer  for  their  negative  part, 
viz.  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  their  difficulties  instantly  com- 
mence, and  the  mode  they  adopt  of  conducting  the  debate,  drives 
them  into  such  extremities,  as  ruin  the  cause  they  mean  to  carry,  e. 
g.  Is  an  infant  to  be  bciptized  ?  No,  says  a  Baptist.  Why  ?  Because 
baptism,  says  he,  being  a  positive  ordinance,  no  one  can  be  deemed 
a  proper  subject  of  it  but  by  virtue  of  some  plain,  express  command 
of  God.  This  idc/.  of  express  command  they  raise  so  excessively  high, 
that  sure  enough  they  have  done  the  business  of  infants  in  cutting 
tiien7  off  from  baptism  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  and  by  the  same  pro- 


J  SHORT  METHOD,  tjfc\  eS 

cess,  ^  breach  is  made  in  famale  communion,  and  women  are  cut  off 
from  the  Lord's  table.— This  is  the  Ih'st  thing  that  rises  out  of  their 
system,  and  which  Avill  co-operate  with  others  to  ruin  it.  I  undertake 
to  prove  that,  accordinj^  to  the  principles  and  reasoninj^s  of  the  I3ap- 
tists,  a  woman,  however  quaiiiied,  can  have  no  right  at  all  to  the 
I-crd's  supper. 

Again,  the  Baptists,  in  order  to  patch  their  system,  and  p^ivc  it  th.e 
appearance  of  consistency,  arc  under  tlie  necessity  of  maintainini^  the 
rifrht  of  females  to  the  Lord's  table,  upon  the  same  principle  en 
which  they  oppose  infant  baptism  ;  but  \rheh  they  set  about  this, 
they  make  a  shiit  to  lose  their  principle,  are  transformed  into  Pjc- 
dobaptists,  reason  by  analogy  and  inierence,  and  fall  into  }>revaricatiori 
and  self-contradiction,  the  moat  miserable. — This  is  t!ic  second  thing-. 
I,  therefore,  undertake  to  shov/,  that  the  Baptists,  in  proving  against 
ini'ants,  and  in  defending  female  communion,  do  shift  their  ground, 
contradict  them.seives,  and  prevaricate  most  pitifully. 

Further,  Avhen  an  argument  is  urged  against  tJie  Baptists  from  the 
membership  of  infants  in  the  ancient  churcli,  and  their  being,  all  in- 
fants as  they  v/ere,  the  subjects  of  a  religious  rii.-e,  the  liaptists  do  not 
deny  the  fact  of  their  membership  ;  but,  in  order  to  evade  the  conse- 
quence, they  lay  violent  hands  on  the  church,  the  membership,  and 
the  instituted  religious  rite,  and  in  this  way  they  endeavour  to  effect 
their  escape. — This  is  the  third  thing.  I,  therefore,  undertake  to 
prove  that,  according  to  their  principles  and  reasonings,  the  ever 
blessed  God  had  no  church  in  this  world  for  at  least  lifteen  hundred 
years. 

There  is  another  thing  I  thought  of  introducing  against  the  Bap- 
tists in  this  way  ;  but  as  I  know  not  hcv/  they  v/ill  answer  it,  (since 
Mr.  B.  has  said  nothing  about  it,  though  it  was  in  a  work  v/hich  he 
himself  has  noticed)  I  intend  now  to  put  it  in  another  part  in  the  form 
of  a  query,  which  I  shall  submit  to  any  Baptist  who  may  think  proper 
to  write  on  the  subject. 

Here  are,  therefore,  three  tilings  that  arise  out  of  tlie  baptist  sys- 
tem, and  which,  if  fairly  evinced,  are  suHlcient  to  ruin  that  sysiem 
cut  of  v/hich  they  arise  ; 

1.  That,  according  to  the  principles  and  reasoning  of  the  Baptists, 
a  v.oman,  however  qualified,  can  have  no  right  at  all  to  the  Lord's 
table. 

2.  That  the  Baptists,  in  opposing  infant  baptism,  and  defending 
female  communion,  do  sliifi  tlieir  ground,  contradict  themselves,  I'Jid 
prevaricate  most  pitifully. 

3.  That,  according  to  their  principles  and  mode  of  reasoning,  God 
had  no  church  in  this  world  for  at  least  fifteen  hundred  years. 

These  things  I  undertake  to  make  out  from  the  worl:s  of  that  ven- 
erable champion  on  the  Baptist  side,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Abraham  Bootli. 

I  will  begin  v.ith  the  first  of  these,  viz.  That,  according  to  tlie 
])ri\iciples,  £cc.  cf  the  Baptists,  no  woman,  ho\\ever  quaiifed,  cau 
have  any  right  to  the  Lord's  table.  But  before  I  proceed  to  the 
proof,  it  v/ill  be  necessary  to  observe  to  the  reader,  that  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper  are  both  considered  by  Mr.  B.  as  positive  ordinan- 
ces, which  X  vrill  not  dispute  witli  him^  but  do  grant  them  to  be  such. 


€4  J  SHORT  METHOD 

The  reader,  therefore,  will  remark,  that  as  Mr.  B's.  reasoning,  by 
which  he  opposes  infant  baptism,  is  founded  upon  tliis,  that  baptism 
is  a  positive  institute  ;  the  same  reasoning  is  also  applicable  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  because  that  is  likewise  a  positive  rite.  This  Mr.  B. 
will  not  deny,  nor  can  he  deny  it,  without  overturning  his  oami  system. 
Then,  as  the  institutes  are  both  positive,  and  the  same  reasoning  will 
apply  to  both,  I  undertake  to  prove, 

1.  That,  according  to  the  principles  and  reasonings  of  the  Bap- 
tists, a  v.'oman,  however  oualilied,  can  have  no  right  at  all  to  the 
Lord's  supper. 

That  I  may  make  this  matter  as  plain  as  possible  to  the  reader,  it 
will  be  needful  to  set  down  various  topics  from  which  female  right  to 
the  Lord's  supper  may  be,  or  is  at  any  time  evinced.  I  say  then 
if  Avomen  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's  table,  that  right  must  be  proved 
from  some  or  all  of  the  following  considerations,  viz.  From  their  be- 
ing in  the  favor  of  God^ — from  their  fitness  for  such  ail  ordinance  as 
godly  persons — fromi  the  benefit  it  may  be  to  them — from  their  church 
membership — from  their  baptism — or,  lastly,  from  some  express  pre- 
cept or  example  in  the  vrord  of  God.  Let  us  form  each  of  these  into 
a  question. 

Qi'c^.tion  1.  Can  the  right  of  a  v/omanto  the  Lord's  table  be  proved 
from  their  interest  in  God's  favor  ? 

JnsTjer.  Mr.  Booth  says,  No.  Vol.  ii.  p.  227,  "  But  supposing 
ii  were  clearly  evinced  that  all  the  children  of  believers  are  interested 
in  the  covenant  of  grace,  it  would  not  certainly  foliov*'  tliat  they  are 
entitled  to  baptism.  For  baptism,  being  a  branch  of  positive  v/orship, 
[and  so  the  Lord's  supper]  depends  entirdy  on  the  sovereign  Avill  of 
its  author  ;  which  will,  revealed  in  positive  precepts,  or  by  apostolic 
examples,  is  the  orJij  rule  of  its  a.dministration." — "  So  far  is  it  from 
being  a  fact,  that  an  interest  in  tlie  new  covenant,  and  a  title  to  posi- 
tive institutes,  [baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper]  may  be  inferred  the 
one  from  the  other."  Page  228.  "  All  reasoning  from  data  of  a  mor- 
al kind  is  v/ide  of  the  mark." 

A^'ote.  No  interest  in  tlie  covenant  of  grace,  or  the  new  covenant, 
however  clearly  evinced,  can  give  any  right  to  a  positive  institute,  i.  e. 
either  to  baptism  or  the  Lord's  supper.  Then  a  woman,  being  in  the 
covenant  of  grace,  or  in  God's  fa.vor,  har  no  right  on  that  account  to 
the  Lord's  supper  ;  for  all  this  depends  only  on  positive  precept  or  ex- 
ample. 

Qu?stio?i  2.  Can  the  right  of  females  be  provod  fi'om  their  suitable- 
ness to  that  ordinance  as  godly  persons  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Booth  aiTirms  it  caimot.  Vol.  1.  p.  227.  "But 
when  our  divine  Lord,  addressing  his  disciples  in  a  positive  command, 
says,  '  It  shall  be  so  ;'  or,  when  speaking  by  an  apostolic  example,  he 
declares,  '  It  is  thus,' all  our  own  reasonings  about^//2^ss,  expediency, 
or  utility,  nuist  hide  their  impertinent  heads."  Vol.  ii.  p.  228. 
*-This  being  the  case,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  all  reasoning  from 
data  of  a  moral  kind,  and  the  supposed  fitness  of  things,  is  wide  of  the 
m.ark."  Vol.  ii.  p.  389.  "But  were  we  to  admit  the  great  Vi . 
tringa's  presumptions  as  facts,  viz.  That  the  infants  of  believing  par- 
ents are  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  p.  377,  yet  v/hile  positive  ap- 


WITH  THE  BAPTISTS.  65 

poiiitments  are  under  the  direction  of  positive  laws,  it  •would  not  fol- 
low that  such  children  should  be  baptized. 

J\otc,  Our  being;  sanctified,  and  thereby  possessing  a  fitness  for  a 
positive  institute,  gives  us  no  right  at  all  to  that  institute,  be  it  what 
it  may.  No  right  to  any  institute,  according  to  IVIr.  ]].  can  be  in- 
ferred from  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  ;  and  all  our  reasoning  from 
fitness,  or  su.pposed  fitness,  is  altogether  impertiUvMit,  and  must  hide 
its  impertinent  head.  So  no  woman,  Mr.  li.  being  judge,  has  a  right 
to  the  Lord's  table  on  account  of  her  being  a  sanctified  or  godly  per- 
son. 

Quefttion  3.  Can  the  riglit  of  females  to  the  Lord's  table  be  proved 
from  the  benefit  or  usefulness  of  that  ordinance  to  them  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Booth  denies  that  it  can.  Vol.  i.  p.  23.  "  Seeing 
baptism  [and  t'le  Lord's  supper  too]  is  as  really  and  entirely  a  posi- 
tive institution  as  any  that  were  given  to  the  chosen  tribes,  we  can- 
not with  safety  infer  either  the  mode,  or  the  subject  of  it,  from  any 
thing  short  of  a  precept,  or  a  precedent,  recorded  in  Scripture,  and 
relating  to  that  very  ordinance."  ^^^ol.  i.  p.  227.  "  \Vhen  our  divine 
Lord,  addressing  his  disciples  in  a  positive  command,  says,  '  It  shall 
be  so,'  or,  when  speaking  by  an  apostolic  example,  he  declares,  *  Iti 
is  thus,'  all  our  own  reasonings  about  fitness,  expediency,  or  utility^ 
must  hide  their  impertinent  heads." 

Mac.  To  reason  from  the  utility  or  benefit  of  TuI  institute  is  quite 
an  impertinent  thing  ;  so  that  wc  cannot  say,  the  Lord's  supper  may 
be  useful  to  females,  therefore  females  should  be  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  supper :  For,  as  Mr.  B.  affirms,  we  cannot  with  safety  infer 
either  mode  or  subject  from  any  thing  short  of  precept,  or  precedent, 
recorded  in  Scriptvu'e,  and  relating  to  the  very  ordinance. 

Questhn  4.  Can  this  riglit  of  females  be  proved  from  their  c'mrch 
membership  r 

Ansu-cr.  Mr.  B.  says  it  cannot.  Vol.  i.  p.  22.  "  Nor  does  it  ap- 
pear from  the  records  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  when  Jehovah  ap- 
poirited  any  branch  of  ritual  worship,  he  left  either  the  subjects  of  it, 
or  the  mode  of  administration,  to  be  inferred  by  the  people,  from  the 
relation  in  which  they  stood  to  himself,  or  from  general  moral  pre- 
cepts, or  from  any  branch  of  moral  v/orship."  In  the  answer  to  Dr. 
Williams,  p.  441,  Mr.  B.  says,  "  But  had  our  author  proved  that 
infants  are  born  members  of  the  visible  church,  it  would  not  thence 
have  been  inferrible,  independent  of  a  divine  precept,  or  an  apostolic 
example,  that  it  is  our  duty  to  baptize  tiiem.  For  as  baptism  is  a 
positive  institute,"  Sec. 

jVottf.  Mr.  Booth  says  we  cannot  infer  the  right  of  a  subject  as  to 
positive  ordinance  from  the  relation  he  stands  in  to  God,  not  even 
from  church  membership  ;  consecjuently  the  membership  of  a  female 
gives  her  no  right  to  the  Lord's  table. 

Qw'stion  5.  Can  the  right  of  females  to  the  supper  be  proved  from 
their  baptism  ? 

Aufswer.  No,  says  Mr.  Booth.  Vol.  i.  p.  22.  "Nor  does  it  ap- 
pear from  the  records  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  when  Jehovah  ap- 
pointed any  branch  of  ritual  worship,  he  left  either  the  subjects  of 
it,  or  the  mode  of  administration,  to  be  inferred  by  the  people,  from 

I 


66  ^4  SHORT  METHOD 

the  relation  in  which  they  stood  to  himself,  or  from  general  moral 
precepts,  nor  yet  from  any  other  ivell-knoivn  positive  rite."  Pag-e  23. 
*'  We  cannot  with  safety  infer  either  the  mode,  or  the  subject  of  it 
[a  positive  ordinance]  from  any  thing-  short  of  a  precept  or  a  prece- 
dent, recorded  in  Scripture,  and  relating-  to  that  very  ordinance." 
This  is  the  burden  of  Mr.  B's.  song-. 

jYjte.  Baptism  is  a  well-known  positive  right;  and  Mr.  B.  denies 
that  the  mode  or  subject  of  one  rite  could  be  inferred  from  another, 
consequently  baptism  can  infer  no  rig-ht  to  the  Lord's  supper :  For, 
upon  Mr.  B's.  word,  we  cannot  infer  either  mode  or  subject  from  any 
thing  short  of  precept  or  example  relating  to  that  very  ordinance. 
Now  as  the  right  of  females  to  the  Lord's  table  cannot,  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  tlie  Baptists,  be  proved  from  any  of  the  preceding  topics, 
there  remains  nothing  to  screen  them  from  that  consequence  which  I 
am  now  fastening  upon  them,  but  some  express  command  or  explicit 
example.     I  come  in  the  last  place,  to  inquire. 

Question  6.  Can  the  right  of  women  to  the  Lord's  table  be  proved 
from  any  express  law  or  example  in  holy  scripture  ? 
Answer.  Here  Mr.  B.  affirms — and  I  deny. 

It  v^^i.ll  be  necessary  here  to  give  tlie  reader  a  complete  view  of  Mr. 
B's.  defence  of  female  communion.  This  defence  is  very  short,  but 
on  his  principles,  it  is  the  most  curious,  most  diverting,  most  mean, 
that  (I  think)  v/as  ever  offered  to  the  public.  It  is  in  vol.  ii.  p.  73,  74, 
and  is  as  follows  : 

"  In  regard  to  the  siipposed  want  of  an  explicit  w^ari-ant  for  adn\it- 
ling  women  to  the  holy  table,  we  reply  by  demanding :  Does  not 
Paul,  when  he  says,  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat, 
enjoin  a  reception  of  the  sacred  supper? — 1.  Does  not  the  term 
(mthrojios,  there  used,  often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species,  without 
regard  to  sex? — 2.  Have  v>^e  not  the  authority  of  lexicographers,  aiid, 
which  is  incomparably  more,  the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for  un.der- 
standint^  it  thus  in  this  passage  ? — 3.  When  the  sexes  are  distin- 
guished and  opposed,  the  word  for  a  man  is  not  anthropos,  but  aneer. 
This  distinction  is  very  strongly  marked  in  that  celebrated  saying  of 
Thales  ;  the  Grecian  sage  was  thankful  to  fortune  that  he  was  antlira- 
pos^  one  of  the  human  species,  and  not  a  beast — ^that  he  was  aneer^  a 
man,  and  not  a  woman. — 4.  liesides,  when  the  Apostle  delivered  to 
the  church  at  Corinth  what  he  had  received  of  the  Lord,  did  he  not 
deliver  a  command — a  conrmand  to  the  whole  church,  consisting  of 
women  as  well  as  men  ?  W^hen  he  further  says.  We,  being  many,  are 
one  bread  and  one  ix>dy  ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread  ; 
does  he  not  spci'.k  of  women  as  well  as  of  men  ? — 5.  Again,  are  there 
any  pre-requisites  for  the  holy  supper,  of  which  women  are  not  equal- 
ly capable  as  men  ? — 6.  And  are  iiot  n.ale  and  female  one  in  Christ  ?'* 
This  is  the  whole  of  the  defence,  and  I  confess  I  have  been  often  di- 
verted in  reading  it  ;  I  thought  it  a  curiosity  as  it  came  from  the  pen 
of  Mr.  B.  M^ho  is  so  great  an  enemy  to  all  inference  and  arjalogy  re- 
specting positive  institiitcs  1 

The  v/hoie  of  this  dcftnce  I  have  divided  into  six  parts,  and  these, 
for  the  sake  of  greater  plainness,  are  distinguished  by  strokes  and 
figures.     Mr.  B.  in  these  six  parts,  aims  at  three  distinct  arguments  : 


rr/27/  THE  BAPTISTS.  67 

The  first  is  taken  from  the  v/oid  cmirojios,  ir.an,  which  inciudts  the 
three  first  parts  ;"  the  second  is  taken  froi>i  Faiil's  addrebs  to  the 
clivirch  as  a  body,  and  takes  in  the  fourth  part;  the  third  is  from  the 
condition  and  quaiihcation  of  females,  and  couiprehends  the  two  last 
paiti. 

Since  Mr.  B.  offers  this  defence  to  the  public  as  proving  an  explicit 
V.  arrant  for  female  communion  ;  we  must,  therefore,  first  of  all  lay 
down  the  precise  idea  of  the  term  explicit.  Explicit  denotes  tliat 
Vv  hich  is  direct,  open,  and  plain  ;  and  which  im.mediately  strikes  the 
mind  without  reasoning  upon  it;  e.  g-.  Act3  viii.  12.  **  They  were 
baptized,  both  men  and  women.''  Here  the  reader  instantly  dis- 
cerns both  sexes,  without  inferring  from  any  otI)er  pLice.  And  hence 
the  term  explicit  is  opposed  to  implication,  i,  e.  any  thing  included 
under  a  general  word.  And  it  is  likewise  opposed  to  inference,  i.  e. 
proof  drawn  from  some  other  place.  An  explicit  warrant,  therefore, 
is  such  as  strikes  at  once  ;  and  precludes  the  necessity  of  implication, 
reasoning,  or  inferring  from  some  other  topic.  Such  a  warrant  Mr. 
13.  insists  upon  for  infant  baptism  ;  and  this  brings  him  under  ti:-e  ne- 
cessity of  producing  the  same  for  female  communion.  Which  if  he 
be  unable  to  do,  all  he  has  said  against  hifants  will  literally  stand  for 
nothing,  and  iils  bpoks  on  that  subject  will  be  even  worse  than  v/aste 
paper. — Now  fcr  the  explicit  warrant  for  female  communion. 

1.  Vv"e  begin  with  the  argument  from  the  v.ord  anthro/^os,  man, 
concerning  which  Mr.  B.  says  three  things  to  evince  an  explicit  war- 
rant. And  first,  Does  not  the  term  anihrojios,  man,  often  stand  as  a 
name  of  our  species  witiiout  regard  to  sex  ?  What  a  lame  set-out  to- 
wards an  explicit  warrant  !  Often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species  ! 
That's  admirable  on  our  side  !  This  is  wha.t  the  learned  call  presump- 
tive evidence,  and  this  is  what  Mr.  B.  produces  towards  an  explicit 
warrant.  Does  he  think  presumptive  and  explicit  are  the  same  ? 
AVhatever  advantage  Mr.  B.  may  wish  to  take,  yet  1  would  not  grant 
tills  v/ere  I  in  his  place,  lest  some  rxdobaptist  shovdd  take  an  advan- 
tage of  it  too.  This  presumptive  mode  of  arguing  on  a  positive  in- 
stitute will  not  do  Mr.  B.  inucii  ciedlt  ;  he  must  certainly  put  on  a 
Ijctter  appearance  than  this. 

Well  then,  in  the  second  place;  "Have  we  not,"  says  Mr.  B. 
"  the  authority  of  lexicographers,  and,  Vvhich  is  incomparably  more, 
the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for  understanding  it  thus  in  that  pas- 
sage ?"  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  Tiie  authority  of  lexicographers!  and  com- 
mon sense  !  Here  is  help  for  the  learned,  and  the  unlearned,  that 
both  may  be  able,  after  consultation  had,  to  pick  out  an  explicit  war- 
lant  !  For  my  own  part  1  do  not  much  like  the  labour  of  turning 
over  lexicographers  at  the  best  of  times,  and  especially  for  an  expli-r 
cit  warraiU ;  i.  e  a,  warraiu  that  sLiikes  the  mind  at  once.  I  rather 
tiiink  M.  B.  if  he  wirihcd  people  to  labour  for  that  which  should  be 
had  v^^ilhout  any  labour  at  all,  should  have  sent  his  inquirers  to  com- 
mentators as  well  as  to  lexicographers,  to  know  hovv  the  Apostle  used 
tlie  word  in  question.  But  suppose  we  depend  on  the  autiiority  of 
these  lexicographers,  it  may  still  be  proper  to  ask,  how  it  is  they 
know  in  vv^hat  numner  the  Apostle  used  this  word  I  Do  they  know  by 
analogy,  or  by  Inferring  from  other  premises  ?  Ah !  Mr.  B.  !  I  fear 


68  J  SHORT  METHOD 

these  gentry  would  betray  you.  And  to  give  you  your  due,  you  do 
not  seem  to  place  much  coniidence  in  them  ;  for  you  say,  that  the  au- 
thority of  common  sense  is  incomparably  more. 

Common  sense!  Hardiy  one  in  hve  hundred  is  able  to  consult  a 
lexicographer,  and  therefore  Mr.  B.  in  order  to  make  his  explicit 
warrant  explicit,  furnishes  help  to  the  unlearned.  Well,  common 
sense,  since  it  pleases  iVIr.  B.  though  you  do  not  understand  Greek, 
to  submit  to  your  determination,  whether  anthropos  be  an  explicit 
word  for  a  woman  ;  and  so,  whether  there  be  any  explicit  warrant 
for  female  communion  :  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  asking  a  few  ques- 
tions. Do  you  know  what  Mr.  B.  means  to  prove  from  1  Cor.  xi. 
28,  Let  a  man,  anthropos^  examine  himself,  &:c.  ?  Yes,  he  means  to 
prove  an  explicit  warrant  for  female  communion.  Very  well.  What 
is  an  explicit  warrant  ?  It  is  that,  the  sense  of  which  you  instantly 
perceive,  witliout  the  necessity  of  reasoning  upon  it  or  inferring  it 
from  some  other  part.  Can  a  warrant  be  deemed  explicit,  if  it  be  not 
founded  on  explicit  words  ?  ('ertainly  not,  for  the  words  constitute 
the  warrant.  If  the  word  mithidjws^  man,  be  used  sometimes  for  a 
male  infant  of  eight  days  old,  John,  vii.  22,  23,  and  perhaps  a 
hundred  times  in  the  New  Testament,  for  a  male  adult  only  ;  and  nine- 
teen times  in  the  Septuagint  and  Nev/  Testament,  to  distinguish  the 
male  from  the  female  when  both  are  named  ;  would  you,  eifter  all  this, 
consider  it  as  an  explicit  word  for  a  woman  ?  No,  it  is  impossible. 
Mr.  B,  says,  he  has  your  authority  for  understanding  it,  as  a  name 
of  our  species,  i.  e.  comprehending  male  and  female,  in  this  place  ; 
but  if  this  word  be  not  an  explicit  Avord  for  a  wcnian,  how  do  you 
know  that  v/omen  as  well  as  men  are  included  in  it  ?  I  conclude  it  from 
this,  tliat  women  as  well  as  men  were  baptized,  that  they  were  re- 
ceived into  tlie  church  ;  and  therefore  must  be  implied  in  this  word. — 
So,  so  I  You  conclude  it  by  ana,logy,  implication,  and  inference  I 
These  are  fine  materials  for  an  explicit  warrant.  Cito  in  cdlam  abi^ 
and  take  your  authoj-lty  with  you  lest  Mr.  B.  should  Hog  you  in  his 
next  publication  for  talking  so  much  like  a  Pxdobaptist. 

But  if  the  authority  of  lexicographers  and  common  sense  will  not 
bring  the  business  home,  Mr.  13.  is  determined  to  make  use  of  his 
own  authority.  He  has  no  other  way  of  preserving  the  credit  of  his 
book  ;  and,  therefore,  he  will  even  risk  his  ovm  reputation  ratlier  than 
lose  his  explicit  w^arrant.  He  ventures  in  the  third  part  to  say,  that, 
'*•  when  the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  opposed,  the  word  for  a  man 
is  not  anthrd'-ios  but  anctr''  This  is  Mr.  B's.  own,  and  he  himself  is 
accountable  for  it.  The  assertion  is  made  use  of  to  give  a  color  to  his 
explicit  warrant  ;  and  it  was,  no  doubt,  the  necessity  of  his  case  that 
drove  him  to  this.  He  had  prer:sed  the  Piedobaptists,  through  a 
great  part  ot  his  875  pages,  to  produce  an  explicit  warrant  for  infant 
baptism  ;  and  having  thereby  forged  a  chain  for  himself,  he  is  now  en- 
tangled in  his  turn.  It  is  sufficient  for  me,  in  this  place,  to  say,  that 
this  assertion  of  Mr.  B.  is  utterly  false.  I  have  already  presented  the 
reader  with  nineteen  instances  out  of  the  Septuagint  and  New -Testa- 
ment, which  lie  directly  against  him.  Mr.  B.  in  order  to  pass  off  this 
assertion  of  his  with  a  better  grace,  has  given  us  a  quotation,  though 
jiot  at   all  to  the  point,  from  Diogenes,  out  of  his  life  cf  Thales. 


WITH  THE  BAPTISTS.  60 

What  I  have  to  say  respecting  the  quotation  is  this,  that  had  Diogen- 
es, or  any  one  else,  affirmed  the  same  as  Mr.  B.  (which  he  has  not, 
nor  Thales  neither,)  I  would  have  linked  them  togetlier  as  two  false 
Avitnesses.  And  I  say  farther,  it  seems  a  marvellous  thing,  that  Mr. 
B.  should  be  so  well  acquainted  with  Thales,  and  his  biographer  Di- 
ogenes ;  and  at  the  same  time  so  excessively  ignorant  of  his  own  Bible. 

This  is  Mr.  B's.  first  argument  to  prove  an  explicit  warrimt ;  and 
the  parts  of  which  it  is  composed  are  three.  It  is  said,  indeed,  "a 
three-fold  cord  is  not  easily  broken."  But  Solomon  did  not  mean 
such  a  cord  as  Mr.  B's. ;  his  is  what  people  commonly  call  a  rope  of 
sand,  which  will  by  no  means  endure  stretching.  Here  we  have,  in 
this  part,  a  presumption  to  begin  with  ;  and  next,  implication  and  in- 
ference ;  and  lastly,  a  broad  falsehood  to  close  the  whole.  This  is  Mr. 
B's.  method  ofmaldng  up  an  explicit  warrant !  And  every  one  knows, 
that  when  presumption  takes  the  lead,  it  is  no  wonder  if  falsehood 
should  bring  up  the  rear. 

2.  I  come  now  to  take  notice  of  his  second  argument,  taken  from 
Paul's  address  to  the  church  as  a  body  ;  and  which  takes  in  the  fourth 
part  of  his  defence  of  female  communion.  His  words  are  these  : 
"  Besides,  when  the  Apostle  delivered  to  the  church  at  Corinth  what 
he  had  received  of  the  Lord  ;  did  he  not  deliver  a  command — a  com- 
mand to  the  whole  church,  consisting  of  women  as  well  as  men  ?'* 
When  he  further  says,  "  We  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body  ; 
for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread ;  does  he  not  speak  of  wo- 
men as  well  as  men  r"  This  is  IMr.  B's.  way  of  producing  an  explicit 
warrant ;  did  he  not  deliver  a  command  to  the  whole  church,  consist- 
ing of  women  as  well  as  men  ?  and  did  he  not  speak  of  women  as  well 
as  men  ?  It  was  Mr.  B's.  place  to  show  by  explicit  words,  that  he  did 
speak  of  women  as  well  as  men  ;  but  since  he  has  only  proposed  his 
questions,  and  has  not  himself  afhrmed  any  tiling,  he  seems  willing  to 
tlirow  the  work  of  inferring  oft'  irom  himself  upon  the  reader.  Mr.  B. 
is  an  artful  disputant,  he  knev/  that  reasoning  by  inference,  which  he 
had  so  often  exploded,  would  be  highly  unbecoming  in  him  ;  and  there- 
fore, to  avoid  that,  he  puts  it  into  the  form  of  a  question,  as  if  he  would 
say,  I  leave  you,  my  reader,  to  draw  the  inference. 

If  by  the  command  in  this  argument,  Mr.  B.  means  these  words, 
"  Let  a  man  examine  himself,"  kc.  he  had  spoken  upon  it  in  his  v/ay 
before  ;  and  if  it  had  contained  any  explicit  warrant  for  female  com- 
munion, it  was  certainly  in  his  power  to  show  it :  Tliere  could,  there- 
fore, be  no  necessity  to  produce  it  again,  and  especially  in  the  obscure 
manner  he  has  done.  But  if  that  be  the  command  he  intends,  I  defy 
him  to  show  one  explicit  word  for  female  communion  in  any  part  of  it. 
He  has,  indeed,  in  what  he  thought  fit  to  advance  upon  it,  ventured  a 
presumption,  an  inference,  and  a  lalseliood  ;  of  all  which  I  have  spoken 
sufficiently  already. 

But  I  rather  think  he  means  some  other  command,  because  he  in- 
troduces it  with  the  v/ord,  "besides,"  as  if  intending  some  fresh  mat- 
ter. And  if  so,  I  know  no  more  than  the  pen  in  my  hand,  what 
command  it  is  he  drives  at.  But  be  it  what  it  may,  he  asks,  whether 
it  was  not  to  women  as  well  as  men?  And  I,  on  the  other  hand,  de- 
ci-.ij-e  I  neither  knov/  what  it  v/as,  nor  to  whom  it  was  directed.     It 


70  J  SHORT  ynrrnoD 

certainly  was  his  duly  lo  have  specified  what  the  coinmr.M'!  v/as  ;  and  if 
it  was  a  conimand  to  receive  the  Lord's  supper,  he  should  Uicn  have 
proved  that  females  were  as  explicitly  named  therein  as  males.  Does 
Mr.  B.  think,  that,  after  all  he  has  said  about  express  commands,  he 
liimstlfis  to  take  any  thing  for  granted  ;  or  to  foim  a  conclusion  by  a 
guess  ?  It  must  be  absurd  in  a  man  like  him,  Vvl^.o,  v/hen  he  pretends 
to  produce  an  explicit  warrant,  talks  to  his  reader  about  some  un- 
kriown  command  ;  and  then,  instead  of  specifying  what  this  command 
was,  and  showing  that  women  were  expressly  named  tlierein  ;  leaves 
him,  in  the  best  way  he  x:an,  to  conjecture  the  whole. 

Mr.  B.  having  e:rpressed  himself  plainly  on  the  first  argument,  did 
thereby  lay  himself  open  to  detection,  and  it  became  an  easy  business 
to  expose  him  for  his  presumptive  argum.ent,  his  inference,  and  his 
falsehood ;  but  he  has  saved  himself  from  that  in  his  second  argu- 
ment merely  by  the  obscurity  of  his  language.  Saved  himself,  did  1 
say,  by  the  o]:jscurity  of  his  language  ?  No,  far  from  it.  A  ma.n  ren- 
ders himself  sufltciently  ridiculous,  who  comes  full  of  his  e:;plicit 
warrant  for  female  communion,  and  then  says  to  his  reader.  Did  not 
the  Apostle  deliver  a  command  to  women  as  well  as  lo  men  ?  And  did 
he  not  cp^^ak  to  women  as  well  as  to  men  ?  When  it  was  his  business 
to  show  that  he  did,  and  to  bring  explicit  words  to  prove  it. 

o.  I  advert  lastly  to  Mr.  B's.  third  argument,  which  is  taken  from 
the  condition  and  cjualification  of  females  ;  and  compreher^ds  the  two 
last  parts.  Thus  he  expresses  himself:  *'  Again,  are  there  any  pre- 
requisites for  the  holy  supper  of  which  v.^cmen  are  not  equally  capable 
as  men  ?'*  And  are  not  male  and  female  one  in  Christ  ?• — I  have  no 
reason  to  complain  of  the  ambiguity  of  this  argument  any  more  I  ban 
that  of  the  hrst  ;  it  is  sufficiently  plain,  that  even  he  that  runs  may 
read  it.     I  shall,  therefore,  only  briefly  observe  upon  it,  that 

The  mode  of  reasoning,  which  Mr.  B.  has  openly  adopted  in  this 
place,  as  that  of  analogy.  The  analogy  lies  ]>etween  the  male  and 
the  female,  thus :  Thai  the  one  has  the  same  pre-recpsisite  for  the 
Lord's  table  as  the  other,  a.nd  both  the  one  arjd  the  other  are  in  Je- 
sus Christ.  From  hence  arises  an  inference  :  If  both  have  the  same 
relation  to  Christ,  and  the  sanic  pre-requisitcs  for  tiic  holy  supper, 
then  the  female  must,  by  just  consequence,  ha^e  the  same  right  to  the 
holy  supper  as  the  male. 

Welf  said,  Mr.  B.  1  This  is  so  neat,  that  I  could  almost  fmd  in  my 
heart  to  forget  that  explicit  warrant  which  you  had  spoken  of  some 
time  ago.  Now  you  talk  like  a  logical  mar; — and  a  generous  man 
too  ;  for  your  last  is  better  jy  far  than  your  first.  It  must  be  much 
better  to  be  thus  open,  than  to  hazard  your  reputation  by  any  thing 
forced,  or  any  thing  talse.  You  see  what  a  good  thing  it  is  to  have 
.analogy  and  inference  ready  at  hand,  and  how  admirably  adapted  they 
are  to  help  at  a  dead  lift.  ^Ve  should  not  despise  any  help,  as  we  knov/ 
not  how  soon  we  may  need  it  ;  and,  to  give  you  your  due,  you  have 
been  neither  too  proud  nor  too  stubborn  to  make  use  of  this.  You 
may  be  the  more  easily  excused  for  what  you  have  said  aguinit  analogy 
p.nd  inference,  for  as  you  are  a  Baptist,  what  you  have  said  was  a  mat- 
ter of  consistency  ;  but  now  you  are  become  a  patron  of  female  ccm- 
munionf  the  case  is  altered,  and  you  are  altered  vrith  it.     But,  at  the 


\ 


WITH  THE  BAPTIST!^.  7t 

name  time,  tliis  Is  no  more  than  what  all  the  Eaptlr:t'^,  with  whom  I 
have  ever  conversed  on  the  subject,  have  done  ;  and  if  it  will  be  uny 
comlbit  to  you  in  this  case,  I  can  tell  you,  with  great  certainty,  that 
I  have  met  with  many  of  your  fraternity  who  have  been  as  great 
chan^-elin^s  in  this  business  as  yourself.  At  present  I  only  blame 
you  for  this,  tliat  under  the  colour  of  explicit  proof,  you  shoidd  intro- 
duce, and  endeavom*  to  pass  oif,  nothing-  better,  l)ut  something  far 
worse,  than  hiferential  reasoning. 

I  would  just  remark  on  wdiat  Mr.  B.  has  advanced  in  support  of 
his  explicit  warrant,  that  the  defence  he  has  set  up  carries  in-»it  its  own 
conviction.  I  mean  with  respect  to  the  number  of  particulars — the 
'  ■inner  in  which  they  are  proposed^  and  the  matter  of  which  they 

.isist. 

Nc>\7  it  is  the  nature  of  an  explicit  warrant  to  show  itself  instantlv 
to  the  mind  of  the  reader  ;  and  its  own  evideiice  is  the  stron;^est  it 
can  have  :  Tlie  consec^uence  is,  that  he  who  really  produces  one,  nei- 
ther can,  nor  does  he  need,  to  streng-tlien  it  by  any  reasons  he  can  ad- 
vance, e.  r;.  ^Vere  I  called  upon  to  produce  an  explicit  wan-ant  for 
L^male  baptism,  I  would  only  ailed ge  those  words  in  Acts,  viii,  12, 
"  They  were  baptized  both  men  and  wTjmcn."  These  wcrds  strike 
the  mind  at  once,  and  no  reasoning  wdiatever  can  add  any  thing  to 
ilieir  strength  or  evidence  ;  but  Mr.  B.  by  introducing  six  particulars, 
-'lows  plainly  that  neither  of  them  is  explicit,  and  that  it  is  not  in  his 

)  ;ver  to  produce  a.ny  explicit  warrant  at  all :  For  had  any  one  of  these 
ocen  explicit  for  female  communion,  he  might  very  well  have  thrown 
away  all  the  rest. 

In  this  view  there  is  another  thing  remarkable  in  his  defence,  and 

tliat  is,  tliat  every  sentence  but  one  runs  in  the  form  of  a  c[uestion  to 

the  reader.     Instead  of  advancing  his  explicit  proof,  Mr.  B.  comes  to 

tlie  reader  ?>/  forma  panlicris^  with  his  petition  in  his  mouth,  as  if  he 

Ttld  say,  O  generous  reader,  grant  me  what  I  ask,  or — my  cause  is 

'wiiCv  I  I  have  been  drivin.g  against  infant  baptism  with  all  m.y  might, 

}"ing  out.  No  explicit  warrant,  no  explicit  warrant  for  inlant  b:..p- 

^ni  in  ail  the  w^ord  of  God  !  And  now,  as  I  am  called  upoii  fnyself 
to  give  an  explicit  warrant  for  female  communion,  I  beseech  thee,  in- 
fhilgent  reader,  to  admit  my  presumption,  falsehood,  implication, 
inference,  and  analogy,  for  explicit  proof,  and  thus  in  pity  save  my 
sinking  reputation  :  And  your  petitioner,  as  in  duty  bound,  will  ever 

.     I  said  that  every  sentence  in  this  defence  but  one  was  put  in 

the  form  of  a  question.  Now  what  is  still  more  remarkable  is  this, 
that  that  one  sentence,  wh.ich  is  the  only  aflirmative  in  the  w^hole  de- 
fence, should  be  tlie  very  falsehood  against  which  I  have  already  pro- 
duced nineteen  instances. 

If  we  pass  from  the  number  of  parts  which  are  contained  in  this 

i'etice,  a!id  tlie  manner  in  which  they  are  presented  to  the  reader, 
and  come  to  the  matter  of  it,  we  may  say  of  that,  that  there  is  not  a 
single  article  in  it  but  v/hat  is  either  false,  or  presumptive,  or  inference, 
or  analogy,  or  hnplication.  Every  part  is  reducible  to  one  or  other 
of  these  ;  and  there  is  not  one  explicit  word  for  female  communion 

iougiiout  the  whole.  Such  a  delt^nce  as  this  would  not  have  dor.c 
-ry  vrell  in  the  hands  of  a  Fc^idobaptist  ;  but  wlien  adopted  by  a 


73  J  SHORT  METHOD 

Baptist,  it  is  ridiculous  in  himself,  and  an  insufferable  abuse  of,  and 
a  builesquc  upon,  his  reader.  In  short,  there  is  no  explicit  warrant 
to  be  had. 

Now  to  the  point.  I  was  to  prove  that,  according  to  the  princi- 
ples and  reasonings  of  the  Baptists,  a  woman,  however  qualified,  can 
have  no  right  at  all  to  the  Lord's  supper.  We  have  seen,  on  the 
one  hand,  that  it  is  not  possible  to  produce  an  explicit  warrant  for 
female  communion,  and,  on  the  other,  Mr.  B.  affirms  that  they  should 
not  be  admitted  without  one ;  the  result,  therefore,  is,  that,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  B's.  mode  of  reasoning,  no  woman  has  any  right  at  all  to 
communicate  at  the  Lord's  table  :  And  as  Mr.  B.  agrees  with  Bap- 
tists in  general  in  this  point,  the  same  is  true  of  the  principles  and 
reasonings  of  them  all. — This  is  the  first  consequence  which  I  under- 
took to  m.ake  good  against  the  Baptists,  and  from  v/hich  they  have 
only  two  ways  of  clearing  themselves.  They  must  either  give  up 
their  mode  of  reasoning  against  infants,  or,  if  they  do  not  choose  this, 
they  must  produce  the  same  express  proof  for  female  communion 
as  they  require  for  infant  baptism. 

As  Mr.  B.  has  plainly  asserted  that  there  can  be  no  argument  for 
female  communion  but  such  as  is  founded  on  positive  precept  or  ex- 
ample, recorded  in  Scripture,  and  relating  to  that  very  ordinance,  it 
lies  upon  him  to  come  forward  and  produce  his  warrant,  or  give  up 
female  communion.  If  I  were  to  answer  his  book,  I  would  turn  the 
enquiry  from  infant  baptism  to  female  communian,  and  then  put  it 
upon  him  to  m.ake  good  his  conclusion  for  the  right  of  females  upon 
the  very  same  principles  which  he  employs  against  infants.  And  I  do 
now  in  good  earnest  put  this  upon  him,  and  heartily  invite  him  to 
the  task,  being  verily  persuaded  that  if  this  subject  were  thoroughly 
sifted,  it  would  be  the  speediest  method  of  adjusting  the  debate. 

When  I  had  compared  what  Mr.  B.  had  said  against  infants  with 
what  he  has  said  in  defence  of  women,  I  have  been  ready  to  su.spect 
that  he  designed  his  book  should  operate  on  the  Pxdobaptist  side  ; 
for,  when  speaking  against  infant  baptism,  he  carries  his  demand  of 
express,  unequivocal,  and  explicit  proof  so  high,  and  enlarges  upon  it 
so  much,  as  if,  by  making  it  exceedingly  remarkable,  he  wished  some 
one  to  compare  the  whole  with  his  defence  of  female  communion,  and 
perceived  that  the  moment  this  was  done,  the  cause  of  the  Baptists 
would  fall.  And  had  Mr.  B.  been  a  person  whose  character  for  in- 
tegrity was  not  known,  it  would  have  been  a  matter  of  some  difficul- 
ty with  me  to  determine  whether  he  did  not  design,  in  a  covert  way, 
to  run  doAvn  the  Baptists'  side  ?  But  knowing  him  to  be  a  man  of 
good  reputation,  I  readily  acquit  him  of  this  ;  yet  I  think,  at  the  same 
time,  that  his  book,  though  writteJi  on  the  Baptist  side,  v/ill  do  more 
towards  overturning  the  Baptist  sentiment  than  any  one  that  has  been 
Avritten  for  many  centuries. 

Thus  much  for  the  first  consequence,  viz.  that,  according  to  the 
reasonings  of  the  Baptists,  no  woman  has  any  more  right  to  the  Lord's 
supper  than  an  infant  has  to  baptism.  But  they,  not  liking  this  con- 
sequence, are  induced  to  set  up  a  defence  of  female  communion  on  the 
ground  of  express  warrant  ;  and  in  doing  this,  they  prevaricate,  dis- 
card their  own  principle,  reason  by  analogy  and  inference,  and  fall  in- 


triTFT  THE  BAPTIST^:  M 

to  setf'conlraclifctldn :  This  is  the  second  consequciide  1  haVe  before 
mientioned,  and  which  I  will  now  plainly  evince. 

Mr.  Bootli)  in  vol.  ii.  p.  509,  expresses  his  stirprise  at  the  incon* 
sistency  of  Pa:dobapti^As  with  each  other.  "But  is  it  not,"  says  he, 
"  I  appeal  to  the  reader,  is  it  not  a  very  singular  phxnomenon  in  th*; 
religious  worlds  that  so  many  denominations  of  Frote^itants  should  ail 
a;^ree  in  one  general  conclusion,  and  yet  diflcr  to  such  an  extreme 
about  the  premises  v»dicnce  it  should  be  hiferred  ?"  I'othiS  I  Only  say, 
if  it  be  a  very  singular  phxnomenon  for  a  number  of  persons  to  be  in- 
consistent with  each  other^  it  must  be  a  more  singular  one  still  for  one 
man  to  diiTcr  from  himr.elf.  ^Ve  will  take  a  view  of  Mr.  B.  in  a  dou- 
ble capacity — as  a  patron  of  female  communion,  and  as  an  opposer  of 
infar.t  baptism. 

Mr.  B's.  defence  of  female  com.munion  does  not  take  up  one  cleat* 
page  ;  the  falsehood,  and  the  quotation  made  use  of  to  set  it  off,  make 
up  more  than  one  third  of  the  defence  ;  so  there  are  oidy  nineteen 
lines  remaining :  I  will,  therefore,  select  some  passages  from  his  op* 
position  to  infant  baptism,  and  place  them  against  what  he  has  ad- 
vanced, in  tliese  nineteen  lines,  in  defence  of  female  communion.  I 
do  this  to  show  that  a  Baptist  cannot  maintain  that  ground  on  Vv^hich 
he  opposes  infant  baptism— that  he  is  compelled  to  desert  his  own 
principle,  and  does  actually  prevaricate,  and  contradict  himself;  from 
which)  as  v^ell  as  from  other  topics,  it  will  appear,  that  the  cause  of  the 
Baptists  is  a  lost  cause.  I  shall  now^  introduce  Mr.  B.  in  his  double 
capacity. 

I.  When  Mr.  B,  is  an  oppoSer  of  infant  baptism,  he  spcaketh  oi\ 
this  wise:  Vol.  ii.  p.  223.  "  This  being  the  c:.se,  ^ve  may  safelv 
conclude  that  all  reasoning  from  data  of  a  moral  kind,  and  tlie  suppos- 
ed fitness  of  things,  is  wide  of  the  mark/'  Vol.  i.  p.  227.  "  Bnt  wheil 
our  divine  Lord,  addressing  his  disciples  in  a  positive  comrmand,  says< 
*  It  shall  be  so,'  or  v.hen,  speaking  by  an  apostolic  example,  he  declares, 
'  It  is  thus,'  all  our  ov/n  reasonings  dhontjltiicss  e^ipcdiency,  or  utility, 
must  hide  their  imipertlnent  heads." 

But  when  JMr.  B.  becomes  a  defender  of  female  communion,  he 
expresseth  himself  thus  :  Vol.  ii.  p.  TS,  74.  "  In  regard  to  the  sup- 
posed want  of  an  explicit  warrant  for  admitting  Women  to  the  holy 
table,  we  reply  by  demanding- — ^Are  there  any  pre-requisitcs  for  the 
holy  supper,  of  vrhich  women  are  not  equally  capable  as  men  ;"  Thus 
Mr.  B.  He  only  asks  the  cpiestion,  and  leaves  the  infeience  to  the 
reader.  This  is  artfully  done,  for  fear  he  should  seem  to  prove  a  right 
to  a  positive  institute  by  inference. 

The  reader  is  desired  to  observe  that  Mr.  B.  in  opposing  infant 
baptism,  will  adm.it  of  no  reasoning  from  moral  data,  or  the  supposed 
fitness  of  things,  and  says  that  all  such  reasoning  is  wide  of  the  mark. 
And  he  likev/ise  says,  "  that  all  cur  reasonings  about  fitness — must 
hide  their  impertinent  heads."  But,  in  defendirig  female  communion, 
he  asks,  "  Are  there  any  pre-requisites  for  the  holy  supper,  of  which 
women  are  not  equally  capable  as  men  '*."  Here  Mr.  B.  the  patron 
of  female  communion,  adopts  the  same  reasoning  which  Mr.  B.  the 
opposer  of  infant  baptism,  had  declared  to  be  Vv  ide  of  the  mark.  As 
the  patron  of  females  he  will  reason  from  the  fitnesB  of  thines — "are 


'M:  ^  SHORT  METHOD 

there  any  pre-reqiilsites  for  the  holy  supper,  of  which  women  are  not 
equally  capable  as  men  ?"  As  the  opposcr  of  infants,  he  insisted  that 
all  such  reasonino-s  should  hide  their  impertinent  heads.  If  the  pat- 
ron offe:nales  and  the  opposcr  of  inf;mts  he  the  same  person,  he  must 
be  guilty  of  a  miserable  prevarication  ;  for  he  attempts  to  pass  off  that 
reasoninp'  uix>n  others,  which  he  himself  declares  to  be  wide  of  the 
mark  ;  and  will  needs  brin^  those  heads  of  reasoning  to  light,  which 
he  bi'ands  with  the  naine  of  impertinent,  and  says  that  their  imperti- 
nent heads  must  be  hid.  This  in  and  out  proceeding  of  the  patron 
of  females  and  op;x)scr  of  inflmts,  I  submit  to  the  judginent  of  the 
reader,  and  leave  tiie  patron  and  opposer  to  settle  tlie  matter  the  best 
way  he  can. 

II.  Again,  IVIr.  B.  when  opposing  infant  baptism,  says,  vol.  i.  p. 
23,  "  Seeing  baptism  is  really  and  entirely  a  positive  institution,  we 
cannot  with  safety  infer  either  the  mode  or  the  subject  of  it  from  any 
thing  short  of  a  precept,  or  a  precedent,  recorded  in  Scripture,  and 
relating  to  that  very  ordinance."  Vol.  ii.  p.  227.  "  Baptism,  being 
a  branch  of  positive  w^orship,  depends  entirely  on  the  sovereign  will  of 
its  Author ;  which  will,  revealed  in  positive  precepts,  or  by  apostolic 
examples,  is  the  only  rule  of  its  administration."  And  in  vol.  ii.  p. 
44,  he  says,  "  The  inquirer  has  nothing  to  do  but  open  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  consult  a  few  express  commands  and  plain  examples,  and 
consider  the  natural  and  proper  sense  of  the  words,  and  then,  without 
the  aid  of  cominentators,  or  the  help  of  critical  acumen,  he  may  de- 
cide on  the  question  before  him."  A  little  after  he  speaks  of  express 
commands  and  express  examples,  which  is  his  uniform  mode  of  ex- 
pression v/hen  opposing  infants. 

But  when  Mr.  B.  comes  to  defend  female  communion,  he  express- 
es himself  thus  :  Vol.  ii.  p.  73.  "  In  regard  to  the  supposed  want 
of  an  explicit  warrant  for  admitting  women  to  the  holy  table,  we  re- 
ply by  demanding — Dots  not  the  term  anthrofios^  there  used,  often 
stand  as  a  name  of  our  species  without  regard  to  sex  ?  Have  we  not 
the  authority  of  lexicographers,  and,  which  is  incomparably  more, 
the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for  understanding  it  thus  in  that  pass- 
age ?  When  the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  opposed,  the  word  for  a 
man  is  not  anthrofios  but  aneer.'* 

The  reader  is  requested  to  notice,  that  Mr.  B.  as  an  opposer  of 
infant  baptism,  contends  for  precept,  positive  precept,  express  com- 
mands, or  express  examples,  and  says,  in  his  index,  that  the  law  of 
mstitutes  must  be  express.  Sec. ;  but,  as  a  defender  of  female  com- 
munion, he  takes  up  with  an  ambiguous  word,  a  mere  presumptive 
proof — "Does  not,"  says  he,  "the  term  anthropos  often  stand  as  a 
name  of  our  species  ?"  and  this  presumption  he  attempts  to  strength- 
en by  a  falsehood,  of  which  I  have  already  spoken.  As  an  opposer 
of  infants  he  says  the  inquirer  may  decide  the  question  without  the 
aid  of  commentators,  or  the  help  of  critical  acumen;  but,  as  a  pat- 
ron of  females,  he  fii-st  furnishes  his  reader  with  an  ambiguous  word, 
and  then  sends  him  to  lexicographers  to  have  it  manufactured  into  a 
positive  one.  Since  it  was  not  in  Mr.  B's.  power  to  form  a  positive 
precept  out  of  an  ambiguous  word,  without  the  aid  of  a  little  infer- 
ence, he  vei-y  artfully  throws  it  into  the  hands  of  lexicographers  and 


WITH  THE  BAPTISTS.  7S 

rnnnnon  sense  to  effect  this  business  for  him.  And  one  cannot  suffi- 
ciently admire  hoAV  tenacious  he  is  oi"  express  precept  Avhen  an  oppcser 
of  infants,  while  at  the  same  time,  as  the  patrons  of  females,  he  is  so 
very  complying,  that  he  can  even  admit  presumptive  evidence  to  pass 
for  an  explicit  warrant. 

III.  Further,  Mr.  B.  in  opposinr^  infont  baptism,  expresses  him- 
self thus:  Vol.  i.  p.  22.  "Nor  does  it  appear  from  the  records  of 
the  Old  Testament,  that  when  Jehovah  appointed  any  branch  of  ritu- 
al worship,  he  left  either  the  subject  of  it,  or  the  mode  of  adminis- 
tration, to  be  inferred  by  the  people  from  the  relation  in  which  they 
stood  to  himself,  or  from  general  moral  precepts,  or  fiv>m  any  branch 
of  his  moral  worship,  nor  yet  from  any  other  v.ell-knov.n  positive  lite  ; 
but  he  gave  them  special  directions  relating  to  the  very  case."  In  vol. 
ii.  p.  227,  he  says,  "  But  supposing  it  were  clearly  evinced  that  all 
the  children  of  believers  are  interested  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  it 
would  not  certainly  follow  that  they  are  entitled  to  baptism  ;  for  bap- 
tism, being  a  branch  of  positive  worship,  depends  entirely  on  the 
sovereign  will  of  its  Author,  which  will,  revealed  in  positive  precepts, 
cr  by  apostolic  examples,  is  the  only  rule  of  its  administration.''  And 
in  the  same  page  he  says,  "  So  far  is  it  from  being  a  fact,  that  an  in- 
terest in  the  nev/  covenant,  and  a  title  to  positive  institutes  may  be  in- 
ferred the  one  from  the  other." 

But  in  proving  the  right  of  women  to  the  Lord's  table,  he  says, 
vol.  ii.  p.  73,  74,  "  In  regard  to  the  supposed  want  of  an  explicit 
warrant  for  admitting  women  to  the  holy  table,  we  reply" by  demand- 
ing—Are not  male  and  female  one  in  Christ  ?"  As  if  he  should  say,  if 
a  female  be  in  Christ,  which  is  the  same  as  being  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  she  must  have  a  right  to  a  positive  institute.  Here  is  a/t  and 
inference  together  1  The  art  appears  in  this,  that  Mr.  B.  would  not  be 
seen  to  draw  the  inference  himself,  but  leaves  that  to  a  Pxdobaptist, 
who  is  more  accustomed  to  that  kind  of  work. 

But  leaving  Mr.  B's.  piece  of  art  in  shunning  to  draw  the  infer- 
ence, I  would  desire  the  reader  to  attend  him  once  more  in  his  dou- 
ble capacity.  In  that  of  an  opposer  of  infants  he  affirms,  that  a  right 
to  a  positive  ordinance  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  the  relation  we  stand 
in  to  God  ;  when  a  patron  of  females,  he  will  infer  their  right  to  the 
Lord's  supper  from  their  being  one  in  Christ  ^ith  males.  As  an  op- 
poser  of  infants,  he  insists  that  an  interest  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
though  clearly  evinced,  gives  no  claim  to  an  instituted  rite  ;  as  a  pat- 
ron of  fem.ales,  he  contends  that  if  a  woman  be  interested  in  Christ, 
she  has  therefore  a  right  to  such  an  institute .  As  an  opposer,  he  de- 
clares it  is  far  from  being  a  fact,  that  an  interest  in  the  new  covenant, 
and  a  title  to  positive  institutes,  may  be  inferred  the  one  from  the  oth- 
er ;  as  a  patron,  he  will  do  that  which  is  so  far  from  being  a  fact :  He 
infers  the  one  from  the  other,  the  right  from  the  interest — are  not  male 
and  female  one  in  Christ  ?  fie  is  very  inflexible  as  an  opposer,  and 
very  pliant  as  a  patron.  Subjecta  viutata  sunt^  et  ille  cum  iUia.  So 
that,  however  the  opposer  of  infants  may  diffi^r  in  his  mode  of  reason- 
ing from  Pxdobaptists,  the  patron  of  females  finds  it  necessary  to 
reason  in  the  same  way.  It  is  pity  the  patron  and  opposer  do  not 
agree,  as  it  would  certainly  Ije  for  the  credit  of  both  to  settle  on  some 
ijniform  modeof  lof^ic. 


f<5  •A  SIIORl'  METHOD 

Before  I  turn  from  tliis  phzcp.omenon  in  the  relir^ious  world,  I  would 
iust  glctiice  at  Mr.  E's.  defence  cf  female  couiinunion  by  itself.  Mr. 
B.  should  have  made  tiiis  a,  distinct  chapter^,  andsliould  have  placed  a 
title  at  the  head  of  it ;  but  as  he  has  net  done  this,  I  \';iU  take  the  lib- 
erty of  doing  it  for  him  :  and  the  reader  may  observe,  in  the  mean 
time,  how  the  chapter  and  title  will  agree,  Mr.  B.  begins  his  de- 
fence in  these  words  ;  "  In  regp^rd  to  the  supposed  v^ant  of  an  explicit 
warrant  for  admitting  women  to  the  holy  table,  v/e  reply,''  &:c.  This 
will  furnish  with  a  title,  which  Viill  run  thus  : 

The  Ri^ht  of  ll'oiusn  to  the  LorcTs  Tabk.^  founded  on  exjiiicit  Warrant. 

N.  B.  An  explicit  warrant  for  females  is  one  where];'!  their  sex  is  specified,  and 
^  opposed  to  all  iinphcation,  analogy,  and  inference.— I'low  for  tiie  Chapter, 

*'  Does  not  Paul,  when  he  says,  '  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and 
so  let  him  eat,'  enjoin  a  reception  of  the  sacred  supper  ?  Does  not  the 
term  anthro/ios,  there  used,  rfien  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species  with- 
out regard  co  sex  ?"  [This  is  presumptive  proof,]  '*  Have  we  not 
the  authority  of  lexicographers,  and,  v/hich  is  incomparably  more, 
the  sanction  of  common  sense,  for  understanding  it  thus  in  that  pas^- 
sage  r"  [This  is  inference.]  "  VVhen  the  sexes  are  distinguished  and 
opposed,  the  word  for  a  man  is  not  antkrojios  but  aneer'"'  [This  is 
false.]  "  When  the  Apostle  delivered  to  the  church  at  Corinth  what 
he  had  received  of  the  Lord,  did  he  not  deliver  a  command — a  conir- 
mand  to  the  whole  church,  consisting  of  women  as  v/ell  as  men  V 
[This  at  best  is  implication  or  presumption.]  "  When  he  further  sayjj, 
We,  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partak- 
ers of  that  one  bread,  does  he  not  speak  of  women  as  well  as  of  men  ?" 
[This  is  the  same  as  before  ;  and  Mr.  Pierce  would  have  said,  "  In- 
•lants,"  as  v/ell  as  men  and  women.]  "  Again,  are  there  any  pre^ 
requisites  for  the  hcly  supper,  cf  which  women  are  not  equally  capa- 
ble as  men  ?"  [This  is  analogy  and  inference  together.]  "  And  are 
not  male  and  female  one  in  Christ  ?"  [This  is  ^\^^^o%J  and  inference 
again.] 

The  reader  will  observe  that  the  Title  promises  an  explicit  war- 
rant, that  is,  a  warrant  in  which  the  sex  is  specified,  and  which  itunds 
opposed  to  implication,  analogy,  and  inference  ;  but  the  Chapter  pro- 
duces nothing  explicit,  the  whole  being  nothing  more  than  a  com- 
pound of  presumption,  falsehood,  implication,  analogy,  and  inference. 
Thus  it  appears  how  the  Title  and  Chapter  agree,  or  rather,  disagree  ; 
5ind  that  Mr.  B.  himself  is  one  of  the  most  wonderful  phjsnomena 
ivhich  the  religious  world  has  afforded. 

The  whole  of  Mr.  B's.  conduct  in  this  affair  brings  to  mind  a  pas^ 
sage  of  Mr.  Alsop,  which  Mr.  B.  has  quoted  in  vol.  ii.  p.  507. 
*'  The  reader  will  learn  at  least  how  impossible  it  is  for  error  to  be  con- 
sonant to  itself.  As  the  two  milestones  grind  one  anotlier  &s  well  a^ 
the  grain,  and  as  the  extrenie  vices  oppose  each  other  as  v.ell  as  the  in- 
termediate virtue  that  lies  betv/een  them,  so  have  all  errors  this  fate, 
(and  it  is  the  best  quality  they  are  guilty  of)  that  they  duel  one  anoth^ 
cr  with  the  same  heat  that  they  oppose  the  triith,"     Mr,  B's.  tAvo 


WITH  THE  BAPTISTS.  77 

RilU-stones  are  his  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  and  his  defence  of 
iemale  communion.  These  two  militant  parts,  like  the  two  mill- 
stones, do  operate  in  hostile  mode,  and  rub,  and  chafe,  and  grind  each 
oth^ir,  as  well  as  infant  baptism,  which  lies  between.  And  it  is  cer- 
tainly the  best  property  Mr.  B's.  book  is  possessed  of,  that  it  exhibits 
the  author  in  his  double  capacity,  not  only  as  militating  against  the 
baptism  of  infants,  but  as  duelling  and  battering  himself  with  the  same 
heat  with  which  he  opposes  that.  Three  short  reflections  on  this  con- 
duct of  Mr.  B.  and  one  apology,  will  iinish  this  part  of  the  subject. 

I.  There  is  something  in  this  conduct  very  luifair.  No  man  should 
bind  a  burden  on  otheri;,  which  he  himself  v/ould  not  touch  with  one 
of  his  fingers.  Can  it  be  deemed  an  upright  proceeding  in  Mr.  B. 
to  cry  down  all  resoning  by  analogy  and  inference  on  a  positive  insti- 
tute, and  alter  that  use  the  same  reasoning,  and  even  worse,  liimself  ? 
Can  it  be  considered  fair  to  demand,  repeatedly  and  loudly  to  demand, 
special,  express,  and  explicit  proof,  and  then  put  off  the  reader  with 
presumption,  inference,  and  analogy  ?  Certainly  he  should  do  as  he 
would  be  done  by  ;  but  if  this  conduct  of  his  be  fair,  I  know  not  what 
is  otherwise. 

II.  There  is  something  in  this  conduct  very  impolitic.  After 
Mr.  L.  had  demanded  positive,  express,  and  explicit  proof,  and  had 
run  down  all  proof  by  analogy  and  inference,  he  should,  if  he  had  had 
but  a  little  policy,  have  kept  that  defence  of  female  communion  entire- 
ly out  of  sight.  It  was  not  crafty  in  him,  though  there  is  a  spice  of 
it  in  the  defence  itself,  to  suffer  that  to  go  abroad,  which,  wlien  set 
against  wdiat  he  had  said  in  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  would  run 
dov>^n  and  ruin  the  whole.  Kad  I  been  he,  and  wished  rny  other  ar- 
gument to  stand,  I  would  have  taken  that  defence,  and  thrown  it  into 
the  hre. 

III.  There  is  something  in  this  conduct  very  unfortunate.  It  is 
a  sad  case  that  a  book  should  be  so  v/ritten,  that  one  part  shall  rise  up 
against  and  ruin  the  other.  Mr.  B.  Sampson-like,  when  opposing  in- 
f.int  baptism,  thinks  he  can  carry  gates  and  bars  and  every  thing  else 
away  ;  but  when  he  defends  female  communion,  Sampson-like  again, 
he  becomes  like  another  man,  that  is  a  Pjcdobaptist  :  For  he  reasons, 
infers,  and  proves,  (set  aside  his  falsehood  and  presumption)  in  the  ve- 
ry same  way.  In  one  tiling,  however,  he  differs,  and  herein  he  is  un- 
fortunate, that  instead  of  killing  tlie  Philistines,  to  wit,  the  arguments 
of  Pr;dobaptists,  he  falls  to  combating  himself,  and  destroys  his  own. 

What  shall  v/e  say  to  these  things  ?  I  reply,  tiiat  with  respect  to 
myself  I  say  thus  much  :  that  as  he  is  unfair,  1  would  dislike  him  ;  as 
he  is  impoliiic,  I  would  excuse  him  ;  as  he  is  unfortunate,  I  v.culd 
piiy  him  ;  and,  under  all  these  views,  I  would  make  the  best  apology 
for  him  which  the  nature  of  the  case  will  admit. 

Since  it  is  evident  that  Mr.  B.  demands  express,  positive,  and  explicit 
proof  with  respect  to  the  mode  and  subject  of  an  instituted  rite,  and 
as  it  is  equally  evident  that  lie  hiuiself  reasons  on  such  &  rite  by  im- 
plication, analogy,  and  inference,  the  apology  I  make  for  him,  and  it 
is  the  best  I  can  make,  is  this  :  That  he  understood  explicit  proof, 
wliich  he  had  so  much  insisted  on,  and  proof-  by  inference,  which  he 
himself  adopted,  to  mean  precisely  the  same  thing,  so  that  when  any 


78  -i  ^MORT  METHOD 

ihino-  was  p!"oved  by  Infci-eijcc,  Sec.  that  proof  "vvas  considered  by  him 
us  express  and  explicit.  This,  I  say,  is  the  best  apology  I  can  make 
for  those  repugnancies,  or  (if  this  apology  he  admitted)  seeminc^  re- 
pugnancies, I  find  in  his  bo(.'k.  But,  methinks,  I  hear  some  Pxdo- 
baptist  say,  if  this  apoloijy  be  good,  it  will  indeed  reconc'le  some  of 
his  inconsistencies,  but  then  he  will,  at  the  same  time,  stand  in  need 
of  another ;  for  if  express  proof  and  proof  by  inference  be  the  same 
thing,  I  should  be  glad  to  know  why  lie  wrote  his  book  at  all.  To 
this  I  can  only  say,  that  I  have  no  other  apology  to  make  ;  ataiem  ha.' 
bet^  let  him  apologize  for  himself.  Leaving  Mr.  B.  or  any  one  else, 
to  manage  these  prevarications,  S;c.  the  best  v/ay  he  can,  I  pass  to  the 
third  consequence,  namely, 

That,  according  to  the  principles  and  reasonings  cf  the  Baptists, 
God  had  no  church  in  this  w^orld  at  least  for  fifteen  hundred  years. 

The  way  in  which  the  Baptists  are  driven  into  this  consequence  is 
this  :  When  it  is  urged  against  them  that  infants  were  constituted 
church  members,  and  were,  by  the  Lord  himself,  deemed  fit  sub- 
jects of  a  religious  rite,  they,  in  order  to  avoid  a  consequence 
w  hich  would  bear  hard  on  their  arguments,  endeavor  to  reduce  this 
church  into  a  mere  civil  society  ;  and  as  they  cannot  deny  the  mem- 
bership of  inflmts,  they  try  to  escape  by  destroying  the  church.  Now 
as  this  is  a  necessary  consequent  of  their  principle,  it  will  serve  to  dis- 
cover the  error  of  that  principle  of  which  it  is  a  consequent. 

Mr.  B.  in  trying  to  effect  his  escape  in  this  way,  has  used  a  lan- 
guage, which,  if  true,  will  prove  that  God  for  many  centuries  had  no 
church  at  all  in  this  world.  This  is  Mr.  B's.  expedient,  but  it  is  a 
desperate  one.  In  vol.  ii.  p.  252,  he  calls  the  then  existing  church, 
an  ^'  ecclesiastico-political  constitution."  By  this  compound  Avord 
he  seems  to  consider  the  church  under  the  notion  of  an  amphibious 
society;  partly  civil,  and  partly  reUgious.  And  he  might  have  like- 
wise considered,  that,  as  nothing  in  nature  differs  more  than  policy 
among  men,  and  piety  tov/ards  God,  they  must  be  viewed  in  all  bodies 
of  men,  whether  large  or  small,  as  things  totally  and  at  all  times 
distinct.  But  this  Mr.  B's.  system  would  not  admit.  Now  in  a  large 
body,  as  the  Jews  for  instance,  all  laws  pertaining  to  human  society, 
as  such,  were  civil  laws  ;  and  all  laws,  though  in  tlie  same  code  wlitii' 
the  others,  relating  to  the  worship  of  God,  were,  properly  speai-.iiic", 
ecclesiastical  laws.  So  with  respect  to  men,  when  they  are  u'iced  in 
promoting  order  and  mutual  security,  they  are  to  be  considered  as  a 
political  state  ;  but  if  some  or  all  of  these  profess  piety  towards  God, 
and  unite  in  his  worship,  they  are  to  be  viewed  as  a  visible  church. 
And  though  all  the  inhabitants  of  Judea  belonged  to  the  state,  it  will 
rtot  follow  that  all  belonged  to  the  visible  church.  There  Avere  with- 
out doubt  some  excommunicated  persons,  some  who  voluntarily  vvilh- 
drew,  and  there  might  be  many,  who  came  unto  the  land  of  Israel, 
that  did  not  join  themselves  to  the  Lord.  There  was,  tlierefore,  no 
just  reason  why  Mr.  B.  should  confound  things,  which  in  their  own 
nature  are  and  ever  must  be  separate.  Neither,  is  it  probable  he 
would  have  done  it,  if  he  had  not  I.^een  compelled  by  his  opposition  to 
the  Qontinuance  of  infant  membership, 


IVITH  THE  BAPTISTS.  79 

Thoiif^h  Mr.  T>.  by  the  phrase  ccclcsiastico-polltlcal  constitution, 
lias  confounded  the  church  and  state,  the  one  beint^  a  kingdom  of  this 
\sor)d,  the  other  tiie  kingdom  of  Christ ;  yet  as  something  of  churcli 
still  mn.kes  its  appearance,  the  consequence  cliarged  on  Baptist  princi- 
ples may  not  seem  to  be  clearly  evinced.  'Tis  true  he  seems  to  grant 
two  parts,  the  political  and  ecclesiastical ;  but  if  we  look  more  narrow- 
ly into  his  book  the  ecclesiastical  part  disappears,  and  nothing  will  re- 
main but  the  political  only. 

In  vol.  ii.  p.  251,  Mr.  B.  has  these  emphatic  words,  "To  be  an 
obedient  subject  of  their  [the  Jews]  civil  government,  and  a  complete 
member  of  their  church  state,  were  the  same  thing."  Every  one 
knows,  that  a  civil  government,  be  it  where  it  may,  is  conversant 
about  present  things,  it  is  a  government  among  [^elves']  citizens  tus 
such,  and  is  designed  to  regulate  their  worldly  concerns.  An  obedi- 
ent suljject  of  such  a  government,  is  one  who  quietly  and  clieerfully 
submits  to  its  regidations,  and  seeks  the  peace  and  security  of  that 
community  to  wliich  he  belongs.  Now  Mr.  B.  assures  us  tliat  such 
v.'as  the  nature  of  things  among  tlic  Jews,  that  "  an  obedient  subject 
of  the  civil  government,  and  a  complete  member  of  the  cliurch  state, 
M-ere  the  same."  If  this  were  so  it  must  be  because  the  civil  govern- 
ment was  nothing  less  than  the  church  ;  and  the  church  was  nothing 
more  than  the  civil  government ;  that  is,  they  were  both  the  same 
thing.  It  signifies  nothing  by  wiiat  name  we  call  this  commvmity, 
whether  a  national  church,  or  an  ccclesiastico-political  constitution  ; 
it  means  no  more  at  last  than  a  civil  govcrnmxnt :  For,  as  Mr.  E.  in- 
forms us,  there  was  nothing  more  required  in  a  complete  member  of 
what  he  calls  the  church,  than  his  being  an  obedient  subject  of  tlie 
civil  government.  Now  as  this,  whatever  it  was,  could  be  no  church 
of  God,  and  as  it  is  not  supposed  there  v/as  a  church  of  a  higher  na- 
ture in  any  other  part;  it  will  follow,  that,  according  to  Mr.  IVs.  prin- 
ciples, God  had  for  many  centuries  no  such  thing  as  a  church,  properly 
so  called,  in  this  world. 

What  a  dreadful  ecclcsia^cide  in  this  same  Mr.  B. !  And  when  v/e 
consider  that  all  this  results  from  principle,  and  is  carried  on  by  regular 
logical  process  ;  what  a  horrid  principle  must  that  be  which  leads  ii 
man  to  destroy  the  very  church  of  God  1  Though  I  have  been  a  Bap- 
tist myself  for  several  years,  I  never  till  lately  discerned  this  shocking 
consequence  of  the  Baptist  sentiment.  And  I  am  much  indebted  to 
Mr,  B.  for  an  insight  intothis,  as  well  as  other  consequences  which  ne- 
cessarily result  from  the  Baptist  scheme.  And  I  have  no  doubt  but 
his  book,  when  nicely  examined,  will  do  more  good  this  way  than 
any  thing  which  has  hitherto  been  written  on  the  subject. 

As  Mr.  B.  to  preserve  his  system,  has  laid  violent  hands  on  the  an- 
cient church  of  God  ;  we  cannot  suppose  that  that  which  was  con- 
nected with  it  could  possibly  escape.  He  that  could  reduce  the  church 
into  a  civil  govenxment,  will  not  think  it  much  to  manufacture  a  reli- 
gious institute  into  a  political  rite.  What  v/as  circumcision  ?  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  B's.  Talmud,  "it  was  a  sign  of  camal  descent,  a  mark 
of  national  distinction,  and  a  token  of  interest  in  temporal  blessings." 
Here  indeed  is  a  good  match  ;  a  civil  institute,  and  a  civil  govern- 
ment!  Now,  though  there  is  iiot  a  vrord  of  truth  in  all  this;  yet  this 


153  Ji  SHORT  METHOD 

honor  Mr.  B.  shall  have,  and  it  is  an  honor  I  cannot  al\vays  give  hini;^ 
that  in  this  he  is  actually  consistent  with  himself:  He  has  secularized 
the  church  and  the  institute  together. 

I  will  not  nov/  contend  with  Mr.  B.  whether  he  has  given  a  true 
account  of  the  ancient  church,  and  its  members ;  it  is  sufficient  for 
my  present  purpose  to  take  notice  of  what  he  has  aHimied.  Yet  I 
could  wish,  should  he  v/rite  again  upon  the  subject  (as  I  hope  he 
will,)  to  see  a  fuller  account  of  that  church,  the  com]plete  mcrr.bcrs 
of  which  were  only  obedient  subjects  of  the  civil  government.  I 
have  never,  in  my  small  reading,  met  with  a  definition  of  a  church 
like  this  ;  it  is  enough  for  me  now  that  Mr.  B.  has.  My  business  is 
not  to  dispute,  but  to  take  it  upon  his  word.  I  only  say,  that  if  such 
a  church  did  ever  exist,  whatever  it  was,  it  could  be  no  church  of 
God.  And  as  there  was  no  better  church,  i.  c.  a  civil  government^ 
in  any  other  part  ;  there  was  not,  on  Mr.  B's.  principles,  for  many 
centuries,  a  church  of  God,  properly  so  called,  in  all  the  world. 

"  An  obedient  subject  of  their  civil  government,  and  a  complete 
member  of  their  church  state,  we:^  the  same  thing."  The  same 
thing  !  If,  then,  the  complete  member  was  no  more  than  an  obedi- 
ent subject  ;  the  church  state  could  be  no  more  than  a  civil  govern- 
ment :  For,  according  to  Mr.  B.  they  were  precisely  the  same  thing. 
What  might  be  the  reason  of  all  this  ?  Mr.  B.  shall  inform  us  himself; 
it  was,  "  because  by  treating  Jehovah  as  their  political  sovereign,  they 
avowed  him  as  the  true  God.'*  As  it  is  not  my  business  in  this  place 
to  oppose  any  thing  Mr.  B.  says,  I  shall  only  take  the  liberty  to  ex- 
plain. What  is  apolitical  sovereign  ?  He  is  one  Vvho  reigns  over  oth- 
ers in  civil  things  ;  that  is,  he  governs  and  regulates  the  aflTairs  of 
this  present  v/orld.  This  is  the  reason  then,  that  an  obedient  sub- 
ject of  civil  government,  and  a  complete  church -member,  were  the 
same  thing  ;  because  all  that  God  had  to  do  with  them  was,  as  a  po- 
litical sovereign,  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  the  present  world. 

But  where  v/ould  have  been  the  harm  of  supposing  the  ever-blessed 
Jehovah  to  have  been  more,  infinitely  more,  than  apolitical  sovereign  I 
And  that  he  gave  his  word  and  ordinances  to  lead  the  faith  of  Christ  ? 
That  he  sent  his  prophets  to  bear  witness,  that  through  his  name 
whosoever  believed  in  him  should  receive  remission  of  sins  ?  That  he 
formed  a  people  for  himself,  to  shew  foith  his  praise  ?  Where,  I  say, 
would  have  been  the  harm  of  supposing  this  ?  None  at  all  in  reality  ; 
the  harm  would  only  have  been  to  Mr.  B's.  system.  For  had  Jeho- 
vah been  a  religious  sovereign,  he  would  have  had  a  religious  commu- 
nity, and  that  community  would  have  been  a  religious  church,  i.  e.  a 
church  professing  godliness  ;  and  then,  an  obedient  subject  of  civil 
government  would  not  have  been  a  complete  member  ;  and  then,  their 
institute  would  have  been  a  religious  institute  ;  and  then — what  then  ? 
And  then  Mr.  B's.  system  would  have  gone  to  ruin.  But  he,  wisely 
foreseeing  this,  takes  measures  to  secularize  the  whole.  He  begins 
at  the  head,  and  goes  down  to  the  institute.  Jehovah  must  be  a  po- 
litical sovereign,  that  the  church  may  be  political  ;  the  church  must 
be  political,  that  the  memiiership  may  be  so  too  ;  the  m.embership 
must  be  political,  that  the  institute  may  be  political  also.  So  all  was 
political  J  a  political   sovereign,  a  political  church,  a  political  mem- 


tVlTH  THE  BJPTISTS.  81 

ber,  anci  a  i7oiitical  institute.  And  now  Mr.  B.  has  gained  l/is  point ; 
for  sure  enouph  there  can  be  no  analogy  between  a  church  and  r.o 
church  ;  and  consequently  no  argument  can  be  drawn  in  favor  of  in- 
fant membership  from  a  church  which  never  was,  to  a  church  that 
now  exists.  Yes,  he  has  gained  liis  point,  he  has  run  down  iiifant 
baptism  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  lie  has  eradicated  the  cliurch  of  God. 
Nay,  he  v/as  under  the  necessity  of  eradicating^  the  churh  of  God, 
that  infant  baptism  might  be  run  down.  This  has  given  me  a  notion 
of  infant  baptism  far  different  from  what  1  ever  had.  And,  if  I 
could  say,  chat  any  one  thing  has  satisfied  my  mind  respecting  it 
more  than  another,  it  has  been  this  :  I  saw  that  infant  baptism  could 
by  no  means  be  overthrovvn,  v/iUiout  overthrov.'ing  the  cliurch  of 
God.  Arid  for  this  conviction  I  am  indebted  to  that  very  book,  on 
which  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  animadvert.  Nothing,  therefore, 
in  nature  can  be  plainer  than  this  consequence,  that  the  system  of  Mr. 
B.  has  subverted  the  chuit:h  of  God. 

These  are  the  three  consequences  which  rise  out  of  the  Baptist  sys- 
tem, and  which,  I  have  said,  will  operate  to  ruin  that  system  out  of 
which  they  arise  :  Namely, 

1.  That  according  to  the  principles  and  reasonings  of  the  Baptists, 
a  woman,  however  qualified,  can  I;avc  no  right  to  the  Lord's  table. 

2.  That  the  Baptists,  in  opposing  iniant  baptism.,  and  defending  fe- 
male commur.ion,  do  vary  their  mode  of  reasonhig,  contradict  them- 
selves, and  prevaricate  most  wretchedly. 

3.  That,  according  to  their  principles  and  reasonings,  God  had  no 
ehurch  in  this  world  for  many  centuries. 

I  shall  nov,'  close  the  Appendix  by  an  appeal  to  the  reader  ;  and  thi'? 
I  mean  to  do  in  three  questions. 

1 .  Are  these  consequences  real  ?  To  answer  this  question  I  need 
only  appeal  to  the  Appendix  itself.  There  the  reader  may  s;atisfy 
himself  respecting  their  reality.  As  to  the  first,  it  is  there  evident, 
that  tliere  is  no  explici'.  command  for  female  communion  ;  and,  accord- 
ing  to  the  Baptist  system,  they  are  not  to  communicate  vithout :  The 
consequence  is,  that  they  iiave  no  right  to  communicate  at  all.  With 
regard  to  the  second,  I  have  placed  r\lr.  B's.  defence  of  female  ccm- 
3ni;nion  against  his  opposition  to  infant  baptism  ;  and  v/hat  repugnan- 
cy, prevarication,  and  seir-contrauicticn,  are  discoverable  in  th.ese  two, 
I  have  presented  to  the  reader,  'i'he  third  speaks  openly  for  itself, 
that  the  besl  church  in  the  woiid  for  many  centuries  Vvas  nothing  else 
but  a  civil  go/ernment. 

t?.  Do  tiiese  consequences  rise  cut  of  the  Baptist  system  ?  For  an 
answer  to  this  I  might  refer  the  reader  to  tlie  former  part  of  the  Ap- 
pendix ;  where  he  may  see  in  what  way  they  actually  do  arise  out  of 
their  system .  Their  system  destroys  the  rl-^hit  of  females  to  the  Lord's 
sui)per,  by  demandln^c<  explicit  proof  for  infant  baptism  ;  because  there 
is  no  such  proof  for  ieinale  communion,  'i'heir  attempt  to  prove 
the  right  of  females  to  commune,  involves  the  in  in  the  most  mean 
prevarication  and  self-contradiction.  And  in  overthrowing  the  argu- 
ment for  infant  baptism  taken  from  t-.ie  memi^ership  of  infants  in 
God's  ancient  church,  they  overtlirow  the  very  church  itself.  In  this 
wav,  these  horrid  consequences  owq  their  birth  to  tliat  bad  system. 

L 


32  A  SHORT  METHOD,  is-V. 

3.  Are  such  consequences  as  these  wliich  rise  out  oF  the  Baptist 
system,  suiTicient  to  ruin  that  system  out  of  which  they  rise  ?  To  this 
I  ansv-^er,  that  if  any  consequences  are  sufficient  to  ruin  a  system, 
theje  are  they.  It  is  a  rule  in  reasoning,  that  that  argument  which 
proves  too  much  destroys  itself.  The  same  is  also  true  of  a  system  ; 
the  system  that  proves  too  much  must  follow  the  fate  of  its  kindred 
argument,  and  prove  its  own  destruction.  This  system,  it  is  true, 
proves  against  inHmt  baptism  ;  but  there  it  does  not  stop,  it  carries  its 
force  stiil  farther,  it  proves  against  female  communion,  and  against  the 
existence  of  God's  c]iurch  :  and  to  complete  the  whole,  it  proves 
against  the  author  who  patronizes  it.  So  that  if  infant  baptism  fall, 
they  all  fall  together ;  female  communion  falls,  the  church  of  God 
fails,  the  author  himself,  Mr.  B.  falls,  and  all  by  the  same  fatal  sys- 
tem. For  if  this  system  make  infant  baptism  a  nulity,  it  makes  fe- 
male communion  a  nulity  too ;  and  turns  the  church  itself  into  a  civil 
government,  and  turns  the  patron  of  it  into  a  self-contradictor.-— 
This,  if  any  thing  can  be,  is  proving-  too  much  ;  and,  therefore,  that 
system  which  is  productive  of  such  consequences,  must  itself  be  de^ 
stroyed  by  the  consequences  it  produces.  And  I  appeal  to  the  con- 
science of  any  reader  whether  these  consequences  have  not  been  prov- 
ed, and  whether  they  are  not  sufficient  to  destroy  any  system. 

I  call  this  a  short  ndethod  with  the  Baptists,  because,  whatever 
course  they  may  take,  it  will  serve  to  ruin  their  scheme.  If,  on  the 
one  hand,  these  consequences  are  suffered  to  remain  as  they  do  now 
in  Mr.  B's.  book,  their  scheme  will  be  ruined  this  way.  For  that  sys- 
tem can  have  no  pretension  at  all  to  truth,  which  in  its  consequences 
inilitates  against  female  communion,  and  the  very  existence  of  the 
church  of  God  ;  and  moreover  exhibits  the  patron  of  it  under  the  shape 
of  a  shifter,  prevaricator,  and  self-contradictor.  But  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  alter  their  mode  of  defence  so  as  to  avoid  these  conse- 
quences, their  scheme  will  be  ruined  that  way  :  For  then,  they  will 
lose  those  very  arguments  by  which  they  endeavor  to  support  it.  So 
that  let  a  Baptist,  Mr.  B.  for  instance,  take  which  way  he  will,  his 
scheme  will  either  be  overwhelmed  with  its  ov/n  consequences,  or  it 
will  fall  for  want  of  arguments. 

Thus  much  I  say  at  present  concerning  the  Appendix :  And  shall 
now  commit  it  into  the  hands  of  God,  the  eternal  patron  of  truth,  and 
to  every  reader's  judgment  and  conscience  in  Iiis  sight. 


A  CASE 


SUBMITTED   TO  THE  CONSIDER ATION  OF   BAPTISTS. 


B, 


EFORE  I  enter  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism,  I  would  take  the  lib- 
erty of  proposing  to  my  Baptist  friends  a  plain  case  ;  not  so  much  a 
case  of  conscience  as  a  case  of  criticism.  That  on  which  this  case  is 
founded  is  as  follows  :  It  is  well  known  that  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation there  are  tv/o  instituted  ordinances  ;  the  one  in  Scripture  is 
t^xpressed  by  the  term  dci/nion^  a  supper,  the  other  by  bajithma^  bap- 
tism. The  proper  and  obvious  meaning  of  ^j//:;?c77  is  a  feast  or  a  com- 
mon meal,  Markvi.  2  1  ;  John  xxi.  22  ;  the  proper  meaning  of  bufnisina 
is  said  to  be  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body.     The  case  then  is  this  : 

If,  because  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term  hujitisma^  baptism,  is 
the  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  a  person,  who.  is  not  immersed, 
cannot  be  said  to  have  been  baptized,  since  nothing  short  of  immer- 
sion amounts  to  the  full  import  of  the  word  baptism.  If  this  be  true, 
I  should  be  glad  to  knov,'  that  as  ddjinon^  a  supper,  properly  means  a 
feast  or  a  common  meal,  whether  a  person  who,  in  the  use  of  that  or- 
dinance, takes  only  a  peace  of  bread  of  half  an  inch  square,  and 
drinks  a  table-spoon  full  of  wine,  which  is  neither  a  feast  nor  a  com- 
iiion  meal,  and  so  does  not  come  up  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word, 
can  be  said  to  have  received  the  Lord's  supper  ? 

Mr.  Booth,  I  presume,  sa^v  this  in  Mr.  Piries'  book,  but  has  not 
.^:en  any  notice  of  it  ;  I  therefore  request  some  Baptist  friend  to  turn 
-bis  attention  to  it. 


OF  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

It  appears  to  me,  from  the  following  circumstance,  that  the 
Baptists  are  not  so  tenacious  of  the  mode  as  of  the  subject  of  baptism. 
I  had  been  convinced  more  than  four  years  ago,  in  reading  Dr.  Wil- 
liams' book,  that  immersion  was  not  essential  to  bajitism  ;  and  though 
I  preached  since  that  period  several  baptizing  sermons  without  say- 
ing a  word  about  the  mode,  I  never  heard  of  any  of  our  13aptist 
friends  that  ever  observed  that  omission  ;  whereas,  on  the  contrary, 
had  I  insisted  on  the  mode,  and  omitted  the  subject,  I  have  not  a 
doubt  but  they  would  luive  noticed  i);  in  the  first  sermon  :  And  I  re- 
member some  years  back  to  have  heard  a\ Baptist  minister  say,  that  the 
mode  of  baptism,  by  immersion  only,  did  not  appear  equally  plain  as 
the  subject.  Indeed  I  am  persuaded  that  if  it  can  be  made  plain  to 
the  Baptists  that  it  is  wrong  to  reject  an  infant,  they  will  soon  give  up 
the  idea  of  immersion  only  ;  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  1  have  been 
the  more  diR'jse  on  the  subject,  and  shall  now  be  short  on  the  mode, 


84  OF  THE  MODE 

All  our  knov.'Iedge  of  the  maimer  of  baptizJDJj  must,  at  this  dis- 
tance of  time  from  the  first  institution,  be  collected  from  the  word 
"  baptize,"  the  circumstances  of  baptism,  and  the  allusions  of  Scrip- 
ture to  that  ordinance :  These  three  I  will  endeavour  to  examine  im- 
partially, confining  myself  to  Scripture,  and  the  word  made  use  of 
in  the  institute.  The  question,  on  vrhich  this  examination  is  to  pro- 
ceed, is  this  ;  Is  immersion  essential  to  baptism  ?  or,  in  other  v/oids, 
Is  there  no  baptism  but  v/hat  is  by  immersion  ?  I  shall  begin  the  in- 
quiry with  that  precise  term  which  the  Scriptures  always  use  when  this 
ordinance  is  spoken  of,  namely,  baptizo^  and  examine  those  places  in 
\yhich  it  occurs  either  as  a  novm  or  a  verb,  v/here  the  ordinance  is  not 
intended. 

There  is  a  word  coramonly  introduced  into  this  debate,  viz.  bajito^ 
though  it  is  never  used  in  Scripture,  respecting  this  ordinance  ;  and 
this  being  the  fact,  I  see  no  great  propriety  in  bringing  it  into  the 
debate  at  all ;  for  let  it  mean  what  it  may,  it  can  signify  nothing  to  the 
question  in  hand  unless  it  had  been  used  by  the  inspired  writers  to  ex- 
press this  ordinance.  I  do  not,  however,  shun  this  term  because  it 
■would  be  unfavorable  to  my  sentiment,  but  because  I  judge  it  best  to 
examine  that  vvord,  and  that  only,  which  the  Holy  Ghost,  when  speak- 
ing of  this  ordinance,  has  thought  proper  to  adopt. 

Neveitheless,  that  I  may  not  omit  it  altogether,  I  would  say  thus 
much  of  the  term  ba/ito^  that  it  is  a  term  of  such  latitude,  that  he  who 
shall  attempt  to  prove,  from  its  use  in  various  authors,  an  absolute  and 
total  immersion,  v.-ill  find  he  has  undertaken  that  which  he  can  never 
fairly  perform.  Of  the  truth  of  this  assertion  I  would  give  the  plain 
reader  a  taste  in  the  following  instances.  The  term  bafito  then  is  used 
to  express, 

1.  The  throwing  of  a  person  into  the  mire.  Job  ix.  31,  en  rajio 
me  ebafisas.     Thou  shalt  plunge,  baptize,  or  make  me  foul  in  the  mire. 

2.  A  partial  dipping.  Matt.  xxvi.  23,  O  embapms  met  emou  en 
to  trublio  teen  chcira.  He  that  dippeth,  baptizeth  his  hand  with  me 
in  the  dish, 

3.  A  stained  garmr;nt.  Rev.  xl.w.  IZ^  imatkn  Bcbammcno7i  aunati. 
A  vesture  dipped,  baptized,  stained  with  blood. 

4.  A  human  body  wet  with  tlic  dew.  Dan.  iv.  33,  afio  ton  drosoTi 
toil  ouranou  to.  soma  autou  ebcjilie.  His  body  was  wet,  baptized  by  or 
from  the  dew  of  heaven. 

5.  The  coloring  a  lake  with  the  blood  of  a  frog.  Homer,  cbaji-^ 
tcto  de  aimaii  limne.  The  lake  was  baptized,  colored,  or  stained  with 
blood. 

6.  The  smearing  of  the  face  with  colors  or  washes.  Aristophanes, 
baptomenos  batrachciois.  He  baptized,  smeared  [his  face]  with  tavrny 
"washes  ;  speaking  of  Magnes,  the  comedian,  who  used  to  color  his 
face  instead  of  using  a  mask. 

7.  The  staining  of  the  hand  by  pressing  a  substance,  Aristotle , 
Thlibomenos  de  bajitei  teen  cheira.  Being  pressed,  it  baptizes,  stains  the 
liand. 

So  various  is  the  use  of  the  term  bapto,  that  we  can  only  view  it  as 
meaning  lo  wet  or  stain,  and  that  by  whatever  mode  the  nature  of  the 
thing  to  be  wetted  or  stained  may  require.     And  I  can  truly  say  i' 


( 


OF  BATTr^M.  85 

have  often  been  heartily  sick  and  sorry  Avhen  I  have  observed  persons 
of  rminence  Ibr  learniiuv,  especially  Dr.  Gale,  laboring,  in  opposition 
to  the  very  instances  which  they  themselves  had  produced,  to  prove 
that  this  term  intended  immersion,  total  immersion,  ar-d  nothing  else. 
But  as  this  word  is  never  used  with  respect  to  the  ordinance  in  ques- 
tion, and  can  thererore  give  us  no  information  concerninij  the  mode  oC 
it,  i  shall  immediately  dismiss  it  without  further  notice. 

I  come  now  to  consider  the  term  baptizo^  vrhich  is  the  only  term 
made  use  of  to  express  this  ordinance,  and  this  I  shall  do  by  settinj^ 
dov/n  those  places  where  it  is  used  as  a  verb  or  a  noun  wlien  the  ordi- 
nance is  not  intended.  These  places  are  as  follov/s  :  Keb.  ix.  10. 
''  Which  stood  in  meats  and  drink  and  divers  washinc^ — diajihoroishafi- 
thwois,  divers  baptisms."  Mark,  vii.  4.  "  And  when  they  came 
from  the  market,  except  they  v/ash,  mec  daptiwntai,  except  they  bap- 
tize, they  eat  not.  And  many  otlier  things  there  be  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  as  the  washing,  baptimous^  baptisms  of  cups  and 
pots,  brazen  vessels  and  of  tables."  Luke,  xi.  38.  "  And  when 
the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  th.at  he  had  not  first  washed,  eba/:- 
tisthee^  baptized,  before  dinner."  The  word,  in  these  instances,  is 
used, 

1.  For  those  various  ablutions  among  the  Jews,  by  sprinkling, 
pouring,  SvC. 

2.  For  a  custom  among  the  Pharisees  of  washing  before  meals. 

3.  For  a  superstitious  washing  cf  housshokl  furniture,  cups,  pots.  Sec 
With   these  instances  in  viev/  I   would  propose  to  the  reader  two 

questions  : 

I.  Is  the  v/ord  baptize  used  in  these  instances  to  express  immersion 
only  ?  The  reader  may  observe  that  the  very  first  instance  proves  it  is 
not.  The  Apostle  plainly  expresses  the  Jewish  ablutions  by  the  term 
"  baptism  ;"  and  any  man,  by  looking  into  his  Bible,  and  reading 
the  account  of  the  Jewish  service,  may  see  what  kind  of  baptisms 
these  were.  Mr.  Booth  himsel/',  in  his  ansv/er  to  Dr.  Williams,  p. 
347,  will  grant  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  Apostle  uses  the 
term  baptisms  in  this  place  to  denote  pouring  and  sprinkling  as  well  as 
immersion  ;  nor  does  he,  in  v/hc-.t  he  has  advanced  on  the  subject,  de- 
ny this  to  have  been  the  fact  ;  and  indeed  a  man  must  be  very  defec- 
tive in  point  of  modesty  who  will  even  attempt  to  deny  this.  Well 
then,  if  the  word  baptism  is  not  used  in  these  instances,  as  it  is  cer- 
tain it  is  not,  to  express  immersion  only,  I  ask,  in  the  next  place — Is 
it  used  to  express  any  immersion  at  all  ?  I  will  apply  this  question  to 
each  of  the  instances  ; 

I.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  the  Jevrish  service,  and  says  it  stood  in 
"  divers  beptisms."  I  ask  whether  immersion  of  the  vrhcle  body 
was  any  part  of  that  service  ?  It  is  clear  that  the  Apostle,  by  the 
word  "  baptisms,"  intended  sprinkling  and  pouring  ;  but  I  believe  it  is 
not  clear  from  any  part  of  the  Jewish  service,  that  any  one  vi^as  or- 
dered to  immerse  himself,  or  be  immersed  by  another.  If  this,  hovr- 
ever,  can  be  proved,  it  mu^t  then  be  granted  that  tiie  Apostle  uses  the 
word  "  baptisms"  to  denote  immersion  as  well  as  pouring  and  sprink* 
ling  ;  but  if  this  cannot  be  proved,  it  will  tiien  be  c^  ident  tliat  no  im 
mersiioa  at  ail  ia  intended  by  the  v/ord  baptisms. 


86  Oir  THE  MODE 

2.  I  will  apply  the  question  to  Ihe  second  ca^c — the  biipllzin^  be- 
fore rneals.  It  is  said,  "  that  v/hen  they  conie  from  market,  except 
lliey  baptize  they  eat  not  ;*'  and  "  the  Pharisee  niarvelled  that  oin' 
Lord  did  not  baptize  (that  is,  himself)  before  dinner."  I  ask,  Is  there 
any  inrmersion  at  ail  here  ?  The  Pharisee  marvelled  that  our  Lord 
did  not  baptize  himself  before  dinner — did  he  marvel  that  he  did  not 
immerse  himself?  The  Pharisees,  when  they  came  from  market,  except 
ihey  baptize,  [themselves]  they  eat  not — did  they  too  immerse  them- 
selves every  time  they  came  from  a  market  ?  I  know  it  is  not  an  impose 
sible  case,  but  I  am  askin;^  whether  it  is  at  all  a  probable  thing  r  And 
if  it  be  not,  then  it  is  improbable  that  the  word  baptize  in  these  places 
should  intend  any  immersion  at  all.  Perhaps  some  one  will  say  that 
nothing;  more  is  intended  than  the  washing  of  hands,  as  this  is  agree- 
able to  the  tradition  of  the  elders  mentioned  in  Matt.  xv.  2  ;  and  it  is 
v.'-eil  known  that  we  dip  our  hands  in  order  to  wash  them.  Suppos- 
ing this  to  be  the  fact,  I  reply,  that  if  we  dip  our  hands  in  order  to 
baptize'  [wash]  them,  then  it  is  certain,  that  dipping  and  baptizing 
[washing]  are  different  things  ; — that  baptizing  [washing]  is  the  end 
and  dipping  a  mean  to  tliat  end  ; — that  we  only  dip  so  much  of  our 
hands  as  may  be  necessary  to  b?^ptize  [wash]  them  ; — and  that  our 
dipping  the  hands  in  orc.er  to  baptize  them  depends  entirely  on  cir- 
cumstances ;  e.  g.  If  I  baptize  [wash]  my  hands  in  a  bason,  I  di])  so 
much  of  them  as  may  be  necessary  to  baptize  them  ;  but  if  I  baptize 
[wash]  them  at  a  cock,  I  do  not  dip  them  at  all — I  only  receive  the 
vater  as  it  falls,  and  baptize  [wash]  them  v.'ithout  dipping.  And  it 
signifies  nothing  to  us  how  they  baptize  [washed]  their  hands,  wheth- 
er in  a  bason  or  at  a  cock  ;  for  the  word  "  baptize"  does  not  express 
the  manner  of  doing,  or  v/hether  by  immersion  or  afiusion,  but  only 
the  thing  done,  namely,  "  washing." 

3.  I  now  carry  the  question  to  the  third  case — the  superstitious 
baptizing  [washing]  of  household  furniture,  cups,  pots,  brazen 
vessels,  and  tables.  Cups,  //o^fc.'w— -these,  it.  appears  from  the  name, 
\7ere  drinking  vessels  ;  pots,  orrs/a/— those  vessels  out  of  which  wine 
or  water  was  poured,  pitchers  or  flaggons.  Brazen  vessels,  chalkia — 
were,  it  is  probable,  for  culinary  uses,  for  boiling.  Tables,  klijud — 
some  take  this  word  as  it  is  here  rendered,  others  think  it  means  those 
fccats  or  benches  on  which  they  sat  at  meals  ;  and  these  are  sometimes 
r.-dlled  ''  ucti^''  beds,  perhaps  from  the  leaning  posture  then  in  use. 
The  Jews,  our  Lord  observes,  held  and  practised  the  baptizing  of 
these  ;  now  v/e  ask,  Does  the  word  baptize  in  this  place  express  any 
immersion  ? 

These  things,  it  is  plain,  were  baptized  [washed]  ;  but  how  they 
^vere  ba'ptized,  no  creature  living  can  determine.  One  thing,  how- 
ever, may  be  remarked,  which  is,  that  all  these  articles  might  very 
conveniently  be  baptized  [washed]  by  ])oin'ing,  Sec.  while,  on  the 
contrary,  it  would  have  been  very  inconvenient,  and  even  improper, 
to  baptize  [wash]  otiiers,  ~oiz.  the  brazen  vessels  and  tables,  by  im- 
mersion. It  is,  1  believe,  a  general  opinion  that  some  of  these  things 
v^'ere  bajjtized  by  dipj/irjg — as  the  cups  and  pots,  and  that  ethers 
'^vtre   baptizL-d    [^i^ashcdj    by  pouring,   sprinkiing,  ac.      And  hence 


OF  BAPTISM  K/ 

i-QCiny  learned  men  have  considered  the  word  baptize  as  CJ^prcssinfij  all 
these   modes.     In  this,  however,  they  appear  to   me  to  have  been 
-mistaken  ;  for  the  word  baptize  [wash,]  thouii;h  it  has  been  applied  to 
'  all  modes  of  washinn;,  is  not  properly  expressive  of  any  mode,  but  iii- 
I  tends  only  the  washing  itself,  wiiich  may  be  done  by  either. 
}       The  conclusion,  therefore,  from  these  instances  is  tiiis :  It  is  evi- 
I  dent  that  the  word  baptize  does  not  intend  immersion  only  ;  the  va- 
;    rious   sprinklings,   pourings,  Sec  among  the  Jews  are  plainly  called 
j    "baptisms.**     Nay,  farther,  it  is  not  certain  that  there  was  any  im- 
mersion at  all  hi  cither  of  the  baptisms  [washiness]  before  us  ;  and  it 
■   is  very  certain  that  whether  these  persons  and  things  were  baptized  by 
')  immersion,  aspersion,  or  aflusion,  the  word  baptize  docs  not  express 
\  either  of  the  modes  by  which  any  person  or  thing  was  washed,  but 
only  the  washing  itself.     And  though  there  has  been  much  dispute  a- 
bout  the  word  "  baptize,"  some  alurming  it  to  mean  iininersioii  only, 
others  aspersion  and  affusion  as  v/eli  as  immersion,  yet,  ])roperiy  speak- 
ing, it   means  neither  of  them.     It  has  indeed  been  used  for  all  thti 


modes  of  washing — sprinkling,  pouring  and  immersing;  whereas  it 
does  not  express  the  one  nor  the  other,  but  washing  only  ;  and 
this  may  be  doac  in  cither  of  the  modes  :  And,  therefore^  Av]v-n  Ave 
read  of  any  person  or  thing  behig  baptized,  we  cannot  coji.clude  fvomL 
the  v/ord  itself  whether  it  was  done  by  aifusion,  aspersion  or  im- 
mersion. 

A3  tiie  word  "  baptize,"  which  means  simply  to  wash,  does  not  de- 
termine the  mode  in  wliich  persons  should  receive  baptism,  I  will  at- 
tend in  the  next  place,  to  the  circnnistances  of  that  ordinance.  Thosa 
I  mean  to  consider  are,  first.  The  placerx  where  baptism  v/as  adminis- 

^  tered,  and,  secondly,  The  preparations  for  baptism. 

I  I.  The  places  chosen  for  this  ordinance  vrere,  among  others,  the 
river  Jordan,  and  Enon,  near  Salim.,  where  it  is  said,  tlicre  were 
many  waters.  This  is  a  circumstance  that  appears  to  v/eigh  on  tlie  side 
^f  immersion ;  and  if  we  give  it  that  weight  in  the  scale  of  reason, 

ifor  v^'hichthe  Baptists  contend,  it  will  amount  to  this—it  is  aprcsum]> 
tive,  but  not  a  certain  proof  of  immersion.  That  it  is  a  presump- 
tive proof  appears  by  this — th?ct  here  was,  as  far  as  we  know,  a  lair 
opportunity  for  immersion  ;  that  it  is  no  more  than  a  presiimptive 
proof  is  evident  from  hence — that  all  this  might  be  and  yet  no  im-i 
mersion.  If  we  say  they  baptized  in  or  at  a  river,  therefore  they  bap^ 
tized  by  immersion,  this  would  be  a  good  consequence  if  it  were  im^ 
possible  to  baptize  at  or  in  a  river  in  any  other  way  :  But  since  a  pel  - 
son  can  baptize  in  or  at  a  river  by  affusion  as  well  as  immersion,  we 
can  only  draw  a  conclusion  in  favour  of  immersion  by  an  act  of  the  fan- 
cy. However  let  it  be  a  proof  of  the  presumptive  kind,  and  itcanv.ct 
possibly  be  any  thing  more. 

Nosv  as  it  is  tne  nature  of  presumptive  proof  to  admit  of  ir.crcase 
or  diminu.tion,  tins,  like  all  proof  of  the  same  kind,  may  be  Incrtab- 
cd  or  diminished.  That  on  the  one  hand,  which  serves  to  increase 
the  presumption  on  the  side  of  innnersion,  is  tlrls :  That  of  all  who 
administer  baptism,  tiiere  are  none  at  this  time  (as  far  as  I  know)  that 
baptize  in  or  at  a  river,  but  such  as  use  immersion.  It  may  indeed  be 
«aid  that  all  this  nutv  be  uccouuled  f^:r:  Trie  case  of  Jo!:n  ditVered 


88  OF  THE  MODE 

very  mnch  from  our's :  he  had  vast  congregalivons  and  many  to  bap* 
tize,  and  no  house  lit  to  contain  them:  So  that  his  choosing  a  river, 
liioii(?h  he  had  baptized  by  afTusion,  would  in  his  case,  have  been, 
on  the  whole,  the  wisest  plan.  And  although  persons  who  baptize 
by  affusion,  do  not  now  go  to  a  river,  yet  v/ere  they  circumstanced 
with  respect  to  their  congregations  and  accommodations,  as  JohnM^as, 
they  would,  in  their  choice  of  place,  act  in  the  same  manner  as  he  did. 
Something  like  this,  I  suppose,  might  be  said ;  but  I  was  willing  to 
give  the  presumption  all  its  force. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  presumption  may  be  diminished  by  observ- 
ing, first,  that  there  were  many  baptizings  which  do  not  appear  to 
have  taken  place  at  or  in  any  river — as  that  of  Paul,  of  the  jailer,  of 
Cornelius,  of  those  of  Samaria,  and  of  the  three  thousand.  And, 
secondly,  there  is  another  thing :  It  cannot  be  proved  v.ith  certainty 
that  even  those  who  were  baptized  in  or  at  Jordan,  Enon,  £cc.  were 
— -I  will  not  say  totally  immersed,  but  that  they  vrerc  so  much  as  in  the 
water  at  all.  Whoever  is  acquainted  with  the  indeterminate  sense  of  tlie 
prepositions  en  m,*  ek,  and  f?/?o,  on  which  this  proof  must  depend, 
will  be  very  sensible  of  this.  These  occur  in  the  following  scriptures  : 
Matt.  iii.  6.  *'  They  were  baptized  of  isim,  en  to  lordanee^  in  Jordan  ;" 
— en  means  not  only  *'  in,"  but  "  nigh,  near,  at,  by,"  Sec.  Acts 
vii.  38.  "They  went  down  both,  cis  to  udor,  into  the  water;"  but 
4:is  besides  "  into,"  often  means  "  towards,  near,"  Sec.  Matt.  iii. 
16.  "And  Jesus  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway,  a/o 
toil  uddtos^  out  of  the  water."  Acts  viii.  39.  "  And  v/hen  they  were 
come  up,  ck  touudatos^  cut  of  the  water  ;" — a/.o  and  ek  very  often  sig- 
nify "  from."  So  that  whereas  it  is  read  in  our  translation — in  Jordan, 
into  the  water,  out  of  the  v;ater,  it  will  read  as  well  in  the  Greek — at 
Jordan,  to  the  water,  from  the  water.  This  is  a  truth  beyond  all  dispute, 
and  wellknov/n  to  every  one  who  is  at  all  conversant  with  the  Greek. 
And  whoever  duly  considers  this  will  easily  be  persuaded  that  it  is  ut- 
terly impossible  to  prove  that  any  one  who  is  said  in  Scripture  to  have 
been  baptized,  was  so  much  as  in  the  water  at  all,  or  that  he  even  wet 
the  sole  of  his  foot. 

2.  The  other  circumstance  relates  to  a  preparation  for  the  ordinance. 
Every  one  who  has  been  accustomed  to  baptize  by  immersion,  must 
certainly  know,  that  it  is  necessary,  v/ith  respect  to  decency  and  safe- 
ty, to  change  the  dresses,  and  to  have  separate  apartments  for  men 
and  v/omen.  This  is  evidently  necessary,  v»1iether  v/e  baptize  in  a 
river,  or  in  a  baptistry.  Now  it  is  certain,  that  altliough  -»/e  read  of 
m.any  baptizings,  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  given,  either  of 
changing  the  dress,  or  of  any  suitable  accommodation  for  the  differ- 
ent sexes.  I'his,  though  a  circumstance  that  weighs  against  immer- 
sion, I  consider  as  being,  like  the  other,  only  of  the  j.resumptive  kind. 
For,  no  doubt,  it  would  be  very  illogical  to  say,  we  read  of  no  change 
of  dress,  or  separate  apartments  for  baptizing,  therefore  there  was  no 
immersion. 

*  John  XX.  4,5,  came  first  f)  [e/y]  the  cepiikhre — Y^t  went  he  not  ia.     From 
v.hich  it  is  evident  that  eis  signities  to  as  well  as  i.ito  :  and  therefore  to  i^retcnd  to     \ 
determine  the  mode  cf  ba;)ti5Tn  from  the  sigrii^xcation  of  that  wori  is  tririi»ig. 


OF  BAPTISM.  37 

This  presumption,  like  the  other,  may  he  made  vU'Dii^-tr  or  vreaker. 
It  may  be  made  weaker  in  tl.is  vay  ;  that  thoiii^h  we  read  of  no 
changing-  of  garments,  or  any  separate  apartmerits,  yet  there  might 
have  been  both  ;  as  many  tilings  might  be  done  of  wliich  the  Scrip- 
tures take  no  notice.  ()ji  the  other  side,  the  preiiumptiou  may  be 
made  stronger,  by  observing  that  there  are  otlier  ca:ies  in  which  men- 
tion is  made  of  garments,  where  thiM'e  could  i)e  no  more  necessity  of 
mentioning  tliem,  than  in  the  case  of  ba})tism  ;  supposing  ba])'cism  to 
have  been  performed  by  inmiersion.  To  instance  only  in  tv/o  cases  ; 
when  our  I.ord  washed  his  disciples'  feet,  it  is  said,  he  laid  aside  his 
garments.  And  Luke,  speaking  of  those  who  stoned  Stephen,  says, 
"  they  laid  down  their  clothes  at  a  young  man's  feet,  whose  name  was 
Saul."  Now  if  the  Scriptures  take  notice  of  the  putting  off  of  gar- 
ments for  the  purpose  of  washing  feet,  and  stoning  a  man  to  death  ; 
how  comes  it  to  pass,  that  as  thousands,  upon  supposition  they  were 
baptized  by  immersion,  must  entirely  have  changed  their  garments,  or 
have  done  vvorse,  the  Scriptures  should  not  drop  a  single  hint  about  it  ? 
Botii  these  presumptions  may  be  tossed  and  turned,  and  streiigtliencd 
and  weakened,  just  as  fancy  may  dictate  ;  whereas,  when  all  is  said  and 
done,  they  are  no  more  than  prei^umptions  still.  And  when  v.c  have 
only  presumption  in  the  premises,  we  can  have  nothing  more  than  prc- 
svuuption  in  tb.e  conclusion. 

To  conclude  this  part  respecting  tl:e  circumstances  ci  baptism  :  I 
will  only  say,  vre  have  here  a  goodiy  combat ;  presumption  contending 
with  presumption.  One  presumption  says,  that  as  they  sometimes 
made  use  of  a  river  for  baptizing,  it  is  likely  they  baptized  by  immer- 
sion. The  other  presumption  answers,  thvit  since  it  does  not  appear, 
that  the  sexes  were  decently  accommodated  for  immersion,  or  that 
there  was  any  changing  of  garments,  it  is  tlierefore  likely  they  did 
not  immerse.  That  presumption  replies,  that  the  sexes  might  be 
very  decently  accommodated  with  change  of  dress,  and  separate  apart- 
ments, though  the  Scriptures  shoukl  notice  neither.  This  presuujp- 
tion  aiBrms,  that  persons  might  be  baptized  in  or  at  a  river,  and  yet 
no  immersion  after  all. 

Now  instead  of  determining  which  of  these  presumptions  is  tlie 
stronger  ;  we  may  learn  thus  much  from  the  circumsiances  of  baptism, 
and  indeed  it  is  all  we  can  learn  ;  and  that  is,  that  it  is  utterly  impos- 
sible to  determine,  from  any  information  they  give,  whether  baptized 
persons  were  immersed  or  not.  Nay,  so  far  are  circumstances  from 
settling  this  point,  that  we  cannot  be  certain  there  was  a  single  per- 
■  son  of  all  the  baptized,  v/ho  went  into  the  water  even  ankle  deep. 
This  is  the  true  state  of  facts  as  they  strike  me,  and  all  beyond  this  is 
the  flight  of  fancy. 

Since  neither  the  term  "  baptize,"  nor  yet  the  circmnstanccs  of 
baptism,  determine  any  thing  concerning  the  mode,  whether  it  is  im- 
mersion or  affusion  ;  I  shall  in  the  next  place  consider  the  allusions  to 
that  ordinance.  I  know  not  whether  1  speak  accm-ately  when  I  call 
them  allusions  ;  but  the  consecpience  either  way  is  not  material,  as 
every  one  v»ill  easily  lUKk-rstand  v/hat  I  intend.  Now  tiiese  allusions 
tcing  of  two  kinds,  I   v.iii,  for  the  liuke  of  distinction,  and  without 

iVl 


V 


00  Ox-   :c^  MODE 

Miv  dcsij^n  of  offence,  ciiil  one  the  "  Baptist  allusion,"  and  the  other, 
the  '-  Pi-^dobapt'.st  alhision." — I  begin  Math, 

I.  The  Baptist  allusion.  The  re?cdei'  will  find  this  in  Rom.  vi.  4. 
"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  d'eathi,"  i<r., 
A  similar  phrase  occurs  in  Col.  ii.  12.  The  Baptists  think  there  is 
an  allusion  in  these  v/ords  to  the  manner  of  baptizing  ;  and  as  the 
Apostle  spe.aLs  of  being  buried  v.ith  him,  they  conciude  the  mode  to 
have  been  immersion.     On  this  conclusion  of  theirs, 

1 .  I  observe  that  these  v/ords  are  an  inference  from  the  third  verse, 
in  which  the  Apostle  says,  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  vvere  baptized  into  Isis  death  ? 
Therefore  "we  are  buried  with  Iiim  by  baptism  "  We  have  here  three 
things  ;  1.  a  baptizing  into  Jesus  Christ:  2.  into  his  death  ;  3.  in- 
to his  burial  :  And  the  last  is  made  the  consequence  of  the  first. 
Tlierefore  we  are  buried  with  him,  because  v.e  v/ere  baptized  into 
him.  To  form  the  antithesis,  we  must  distinguish  bctv/ecn  the  life  and 
death  of  Christ  ;  Uiid  then  it  v/ill  be,  vYe  are  baptized  first  into  the 
life  of  Christ,  then  into  the  death  of  Christ,  and  last  of  all  into  his 
burial.  We  are  broug'ht  by  baptism  into  his  life,  into  his  death,  and 
into  his  burial.  Nov/,  if  baptism  brinf:j  us  into  each  of  these,  and  one 
of  them,  as  the  Baptists  srcy  is  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of  baptizinf^,  then, 
for  the  same  reason,  so  must  the  other  two.  That  is,  his  life  must 
allude  to  the  mode,  so  must  his  death,  emd  so  must  his  burial :  and  the 
reason  is,  because  baptism  unites  us  to  him  in  each  of  these.  And  if 
ail  these  are  to  allude  to  the  mode,  I  should  be  glad  to  know,  what  kind 
of  mode  it  must  at  last  be,  which  is  to  bear  a  resom.blance  to  every  one. 
The  life  of  Christ  was'action,  his  death  was  a  crucifixion,  his  burial 
was  the  inclosing  of  his  body  in  a  cavity  of  the  rock.  The  mode 
therefore  must  be  three-fold  :  it  must  represent  action,  crucifixion  and 
inclosing  in  a  rock  :  because  to  pursue  the  notion  of  the  Baptists,  his 
life,  death  and  burial,  must  all  have  an  alluiiicn  to  the  mode  of 
baptism. 

There  is  no  sect,  I  should  suppose,  that  use  a  mode  of  baptism  to 
which  all  of  these  v;ill  a\;ree.  The  P.omanists  use  salt,  oil,  and  spit- 
tle ;  but  whether  they  ixitend  an  allusion  to  tiie  life  of  Christ,  I  cannot 
take,  upon  me  to  aifirni.  Yet,  as  they  must  have  some  allusion,  the 
salt  may  allude  to  his  life  of  teaching  ;  the  spittle  to  his  life  of  mira- 
cles ;  and  the  oil  to  his  life  of  munincencc.  The  clergy  of  the  church 
of  Enp'land  use  the  sign  of  the  cross  ;  and  this  is  to  allude  to  the  cru- 
cifixion of  Clirist.  The  Baptists  use  immersion  ;  and  this  is  to  aliudc 
to  the  burial  of  Christ.  Now,  if  we  could  unite  all  these  in  one,  wc 
should  have  a  tolerable  allusion  to  our  Lord's  life,  death  and  biuiai  ; 
but  when  each  is  taken  separately,  there  is  a  deficiency  in  point  of 
allusion.  Tlie  English  clergy  are  deficient  in  alluding  only  to  tlic 
crucifixion  ;  but  not  to  the  lif6  and  burial.  The  Romanists  are  de- 
ficient in  alluding  only  to  the  life  and  crucifixion  ;  but  not  to  the  bu- 
rial. The  Baptists  too  are  deficient  in  alluding  to  the  burial  only  ; 
but  not  to  the  life  and  crucifixion.  I  know  not  v/hetner  those  diilVr- 
ent  communities  take  their  document  from  this  part  oi  holy  writ ;  but 
certainly  they  have  the  same  ground  if  they  choose  to  reason  in  the 
same  way.     But  as  the  Baptists  avowedly  do  this,  and  are  at  the  s.i,nic 


OF  B.iPTISM.  91 

time  so  deficierjt  in  the  business  of  Llli'.rsion,  it  would  bf come  them  to 
set  about  a  relbrm  in  tlic  mode  of  tlieir  baptism  ;  it  beini^  at  present 
wanting-  in  two  avlicles,  viz.  the  hfe  and  crucifixion,  i.  e.  tiie  sig-n  of 
the  cross,  and  salt.  Sec. 

That  the  absurdity  of  supposin?^-  an  aUusion  in  this  place  to  the 
mode  of  baptism  may  appear  in  a  siiil  strong-er  light.,  1  would  ob- 
serve that  whar  the  xipcstle  calls  in  vcr.  3,  a  being  baptized  into  the 
death  of  Ciirist,  he  expre«3Si-s  in  ver.  5,  by  being  planted  together  in 
the  likeness  of  his  death.  Tliis  will  be  evident  to  any  one  who  ex- 
amines the  place.  Now  if  any  man  is  disposed,  after  the  metliod  of 
the  Baptists,  to  pick  up  allusions  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  here  are  two 
topics  ready  at  hand,  and  he  may  takebotii  or  either,  as  he  pleases. — 
It  is  usual  with  the  Baptists,  when  contending  for  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, to  affirm  that  the  Apostle  calls  b.;pticm  a  burial ;  and  hence 
they  infer  that  immersion  must  be  the  mode.  This,  however,  is  af- 
iinning  wliat  is  not  true ;  for  tj\e  Apostle  never,  in  any  of  his  writ- 
ings, calls  "baptism  a  burial."  But  on  the  contrary,  he  does  in  this 
Terse  evidently  speak  of  it  under  the  notion  of  planting  ;  and  says, 
We  are  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death.  Here  then,  upon  the 
Baptist  plan,  are  tvro  allusioris — planting  and  crucifixion.  There  are 
none,  I  believe,  who  make  planting  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism ;  but  should  this  be  attempted  by  any,  they  will  have  this  one 
advantage  which  the  Baptists  are  destitute  of ;  and  that  is,  that  v/herc- 
as  baptism  is  no  where  caiied  a  burial,  it  is  in  this  place  plainly  called 
a  planting.  Now,  if  we  suppose  a  person  reasoning  upon  the  plan  of 
.the  Baptists,  he  v*^ill  say,  that  as  the  Apostle  calls  baptism  a  planting, 
he  must  allude  to  the  mode  in  wiiich  that  ordinance  was  administer- 
ed ;  and  every  one,  who  is  at  all  acquainted  vf ith  the  ait  of  planting, 
will  easily  guess  what  kind  of  mode  that  must  be,  to  which  it  alludes. 
^yere  this  only  adopted,  and  it  may  be  adopted  v/ith  greater  advan- 
tage than  the  Baptist  plan,  we  shou.ld  probably  hear  of  some  con- 
tention about  the  mode  of  baptism,  betv,  een  those  who  immerse  and 
those  who  only  plant :  And  in  this  case  I  can  clearly  see  that  victory 
will  crov/n  the  planters. 

There  is  in  the  same  vray  anotiier  allusion  in  this  verse  to  tlie  mode 
of  baptism;  I  have  mentioned  it  before,  but  doit  again  on  account 
of  its  superior  evidence  to  that  allusion  of  the  Baptists.  The  Apos- 
tle says,  v/e  are  planted,  that  is,  baptized,  in  the  likeness  of  his  death. 
Now  taking  this  for  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  the  argument 
for  the  sign  of  the  cross  will  be  incomparably  stronger  than  that  of 
the  Baptists  for  immersion.  I  say  incomparably  stronger  ;  for  where- 
as it  is  only  said  in  the  fourth  verse,  We  are  biu-ied  v.ith  him  by  bap- 
tism ;  it  is  said  in  this  verse,  We  are  planted  [baptized]  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  death  :  there  is  nothing  about  similitude  mentioned  in  their 
allusion  ;  but  here  the  word  "  likeness"  is  actually  used.  The  argu- 
ment, tii'j  re  fore,  in  favor  of  the  sign  of  the  cross,  v/ill  in  the  Baptist 
way  of  arguing,  far  outweigh  that  in  favor  of  immersion.  And  ho'vr 
much  soever  tlie  Baptists  may  despise  that  ceremony,  it  is  evidently 
better  founded  in  this  contest  than  their  own.  So  that  if  their  argu- 
ment from  this  place  be  good  for  immersion,  the  other  is  far  better  for 
the  sign  of  the  cress. — Upon  the  whole,  the  examination  of  this  plan 


92  OP  THE  MODE 

convinces  me  of  nothing  so  much  as  this,  that  both  the  Baptists  in 
general,  and  myself  in  paiticular,  have  been  carried  away  with  the 
mere  soimd  of  a  word,  even  to  the  neglect  of  the  sense  and  scope  of 
the  truth  of  God. 

2.  Leaving,  therefore,  the  whimsical  interpretation  of  the  Baptists 
to  itself,  it  may  be  observed,  in  order  that  we  may  the  better  enter  in- 
to the  Apostle's  design,  that  vrhen  he  says  "  we  are  buried  witli  him, 
by  baptism,"  he  makes  baptism  to  be  the  instrumental  cause  of  burial. 
This  will  appear  plain  by  asking  this  question :  By  what  are  we  bu- 
ried with  him?  TheansAver  is,  By  baptism.  And  indeed  baptism  is 
made  the  instrumental  cause  in  each  case.  If  we  ask,  How  are  we 
brought  into  Jesus  Christ  ?  Arsv.xt-— By  baptism  :  "  Baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ."  How  are  v/e  brought  into  his  death  ?  Answer — By 
baptism  :  Baptized  into  his  death.  How  are  we  brought  into  his 
burial  ?  Answer — By  baptism.  "  Buried  with  him  by  baptism." — . 
If  therefore  the  union  in  life,  death,  and  burial,  be  brought  about  by 
baptism,  then  baptism  is  tlie  instrument?.!  cause  of  this  union  ;  and 
then  the  very  idea  of  allusion  is  entirely  lost,  and  they  present  them- 
selves to  our  view  under  the  notion  of  cause  and  ei!ect.  Baptism  is 
made  the  cause,  and  union  in  the  life,  death,  and  burial,  the  eftect. 

Now  this  being  the  case,  instead  of  hunting  after  allusions,  by  which 
baptism  will  be  any  thing  or  nothing ;  we  must  attend  to  that  ade- 
quacy or  proportion  in  the  cause,  by  virtue  of  vv  h.ich  this  efTect  is  to 
be  produced.  This  adequacy  is  not  formerly  in  cutv/ard  baptism, 
ivhich  is  an  emblem,  and  no  more  than  an  emblem,  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  merely  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of 
which  the  other  is  an  emblem.  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  It  is,  indeed,  the 
nature  and  design  of  both  to  bring  persons  into  union  with  Jesus 
Christ ;  but  then,  the  union  will  be  only  of  the  same  kind  with  the 
baptism.  If  the  baptism  be  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  brings  about 
an  internal,  vital  union  with  Jesus  Christ  ;  but  if  it  be  only  an  out- 
ward baptism,  the  union  will  only  be  visible  and  external.  But  a,s  the 
outward  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  the  inward  and  vital,  the  judgmx-nt 
of  charity  presumes,  unless  there  be  good  proof  to  the  coritrary,  that 
they  who  voluntarily  receive  the  former  are  also  possessed  of  the  latter. 
It  is  according  to  this  judgment  of  chanty  the  Apostle  addresses  the 
Komans  :  He  supposes  baptized  persons  to  be  really  baptized  into  Je- 
sus Christ :  and  then,  by  virtue  of  that  union,  they  live,  they  die,  they 
are  buried,  they  are  raised  again,  and  walk  with  Christ  in  nev/ness  of 
3ife.  All  which  the  Apostle  expresses  in  these  emphatic  v/ords  ; — 
Our  old  man  is  crucified  v/ith  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  de- 
stroyed, that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin- — Dead  indeed  unto 
sin,  but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord — Like  as  Christ 
was  raised  from  the  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  mx'  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  The  scope  of  the  Apostle  is  to  show 
the  vital  influence  of  union  with  Christ,  of  which  baptism  is  the  em- 
blem. And  as  soon  as  any  one  enters  fairly  into  the  Apostles  scope, 
the  insignificant  idea  of  allusion  to  the  mode  of  baptism  disappears,  and, 
to  use  Mr.  B's.  phrase,  hides  its  impertinent  head. — Thus  much  for 
the  Baptist  allusion.     I  shall  next  notice, 

II.  The  Pccdobaptist   allusion.      According   to  this,  the  mode   of 


OF  BAPTISM,  93 

«ommunicatnig*  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  soul,  and  that  of 
I  applying'  the  baptismal  water  to  tlie  body,  are  viewed  as  correspond- 
'  mg  with  each  other.  The  considerations  wliich  lead  to  this,  arc 
such  as  follow  : — 1.  They  both  agree  in  name.  The  inllucnces  of 
the  iloly  Spirit  on  the  soul  are  called  "baptisms,"  and  so  likewise  is 
the  external  application  of  water.  The  term  baptism,  m  hen  U5>ed  to 
express  the  inihience  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  takes  in  both  his  extraor- 
dinary and  saving'  inQuences,  Acts,  i.  5,  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  And  as  these 
have  sometimes  taken  place  in  the  same  persons,  the  term  "  !;ap- 
tize"  has  been  used  to  express  both.  Acts,  x.  44 — 4G,  compared 
with  Acts,  xi.  16 — 18.  2.  They  are  often  associated  in  Scripture. 
How  commonly  do  we  read  such  words  as  these  :  "  I.  indeed  have 
baptized  you  with  water  ;  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy- 
Ghost."  The  reader  will  find  this  form  of  speech  in  the  followintj 
places:  Matt.  iii.  11.  Mark,  i.  8.  Luke, iii.  16.  John,  i.  oo.  Acts, 
i.  5. — xi.  16.  3.  Their  mode  of  communication  is  expressed  in  the 
same  way  :  '•  I  baptize  you,  cniidati^  with  v»'ater,  but  he  shall  baptize 
you,  en  pneumaii  agioy  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  this  is  done  in  all 
the  places,  only  with  this  difference,  that  Luke  omits  the  preposition 
in  one  meml^er,  and  there  it  is  understood.  4.  Baptism  with  water, 
is  an  emblem  of  baptism  wilh  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  application  of 
water  to  the  body,  as  noting  the  putting  avv'ay  the  filth  of  the  ilesh, 
shadows  forth  tlie  inHueiice  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  being  impart- 
ed to  the  soul,  produces  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  tov*-ards 
God. 

Now,  if  these  two  pass  under  the  same  name  ;  if  both  are  fre- 
quently united  in  Scripture  ;  if  the  one  be  an  emblem  of  the  other ; 
and,  if  the  mode  of  commvmication  in  each  baptism  be  expressed  in 
the  same  way  ;  then,  tl:e  way  to  arrive  at  a  clear  view  of  the  mode  of 
outward  baptism,  is  to  observe  in  what  manner  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  described.  This  v\'iil  lead  us  to  consult  a  laxicon  of  a 
very  superior  kind,  a  lexicon  worth  more  than  five  liundrcd  ;  and 
v.hat  is  more,  it  is  the  plain,  unlettered  man's  lexicon,  and  its  title  is, 
''  The  lively  oracles  of  God."  The  article  we  are  to  seek  for  is  the 
term  baptize.  How  does  this  lexicon  define  baptizare,  to  baptize  ? 
Answer — Baptizare  tf>t  f>ujiervenire^  iilabi^  cffuKckrc — plainly,  to  i)ap- 
tlze  is — "  to  come  upon,"  Acts,  i.  5. — to  shed  forth.  Acts,  ii.  oo. — 
to  fall  upon.  Acts,  xi.  15. — to  pour  out,  Acts,  ii.  IT. — x.  ^5.  That 
is,  in  this  baptism  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  comes  upon — falls 
upon — is  shed  forth — is  poured  out,  namely,  on  the  soul.  This  is  the 
account  this  lexicon  gives  of  the  word  "baptize." 

Mr.  Booth,  instead  of  paying  a  due  attention'^  to  this  lexicon,  has^ 
adopted  a  method  which,  when  properly  adverted  to,  will  do  no 
credit  to  him  or  his  book.  His  professed  design  is  to  prove  that  tho 
term  "  bapLize*'  mean3  immersion,  immersion  only,  and  notljing*  else. 
But  how  does  lie  do  it  ?  Wliv,  he  quotes  a  number  of  authors,  vlio, 
as  he  himself  says,  understood  the  term  to  mean  immersion,  pouring, 
and  sprinkling  ;  and  these  quotations  he  calls  concessions.  Conces- 
sions of  v.hat  ?  That  the  word  meant  immersion  only  ?  If  so,  he 
made  them  concede  what  they  never  did  concede,  and  what  they  had 
no  tho'oght  of  concedijig.      If  they  made  no  concession,  as  he  ac- 


9i  OF  THji  Monn: 

knovvledges  they  did  not,  that  the  term  baptize  signified  iminersiou 
only,  what  honesty  could  there  be  in  prodacini:^  them  at  ail?  Pvlr. 
B*3.  tdeiit  is  quotation,  and  therefore  he  must  quote  ;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  it  is  a  shame  to  abuse  the  living  op  the  dead,  and  it  is  a 
bad  ciuise  that  requires  it :  For  wliat  else  is  it  but  abusing-  an  author, 
>vhen  he  is  introduced  as  ^-ranting  that  which  in  iuct  he  never  did 
grant  ? 

But  had  Mr.  B.  consulted,  as  he  oug-h.t,  tlxc  lexicon  I  am  speak- 
ing of,  it  might  have  freed  him  from  the  necesriity  of  using  that  litl.Ie 
art  v/hich  one  cannot  obsevve  in  a  disputant  with  any  degree  of  plea- 
sure. The  authors  he  has  consulted,  if  they  had  been  all  on  his  side, 
(and  I  question  whether  any  one  was  besides  the  Quaker.s)  could  on- 
ly have  tcld  him  hew  men  understood  the  word ;  but  this  lexicon 
ivculd  have  showed  him  bow  God  himself  uses  it:  And  if  we  receive 
the  witness  of  men,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater.  I  ask,  What 
does  God  witness  concerning  the  term  baptize  ?  Ansv»-.er— From  the 
passages  before  cited  it  is  evident  he  witnerjses  this — that  the  term 
strictly  and  properly  means  to  v^^ash,  to  purify.  VVliat  does  God  wit- 
ness concerning  the  mode  of  applying  the  purific  m.atter  ?  Answer — 
It  comes  upon,  falls  upon,  is  shed  forth,  is  poured  out,— Vv'hy  then, 
as  water  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  this,  and  as  the  mode  of  applica- 
tion in  both  cases  is  expressed  in  the  same  way,  we  have  a  witness  on 
the  side  of  pouring  and  sprinkling  in  baptism  infinitely  more  certain 
than  that  of  all  the  lexicographers  and  critics  in  the  world.  What  are 
?»Ir.  B's.  eighty  abused  critics,  even  suppose  they  had  all  been  on  his 
side,  thougji  I  doubtv/hether  hehadoneoutof  the  eighty;  and  even 
suppose  he  had  eight  hundred  m.ore,  vvdiat.  I  say,  are  all  these  when 
compared  to  the  all-wise  God  expounding  and  defning  his  own  words  ? 
Mr.  B.  has  a  Talmud  of  his  own,  in  v/hJch  he  studies  circumcision; 
and  ill-treated  critics,  with  whom  he  impcses  on  the  public  in  the 
article  of  baptism ;  and  though  perhaps  he  may  not  yet  be  ashamed 
of  his  Talmud,  or  his  treatment,  I  believe  the  time  will  come  vvheu 
he  will  be  ashamed  of  both. 

Notwithstanding  the  Scriptures,  when  speaking  of  the  Ijaptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  make  use  of  the  phrases — come  upon — fall  upon — 
shed  forth — poured  out,  Mr.  B.  to  evade  the  force  of  this  as  it  re- 
spects the  mode  of  baptizing,  has  recourse  to  two  miserable  shifts. 
In  one  case  he  Avould  set  aside  the  allusion  to  the  mode,  and  in  the"' 
other  he  would  make  it  agree  with  immersion  ;  and  as  these  are  some- 
what curious,  I  cannot  very  vrell  close  the  subject  without  takii:»g  notice 
©f  them. 

1.  To  set  aside  the  allusion  he  takes  the  following  course  in  his 
answer  to  Dr.  W^illiams.  Page  341,  he  says,  "Dr.  W.  argues  in 
favour  of  pouring  and  of  sprinkling  from  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Thus  he  speaks  :  I  scruple  not  to  assert  it,  there  is  no  ob- 
ject whatever  in  all  the  New  Testament  so  frequently  and  so  explicitly 
signified  by  baptism  as  tliese  divine  inlluences  ;"  relerring  to  Matt. 
iii.  11.  ;  Mark,  i.  8,  9.;  Luke,  iii.  16,  21,  22  ;  and  several  other 
places.  ]Mr.  B.  in  answer,  says,  p.  342,  "  But  those  passages  of 
Scripture  to  which  he  refers,  regard  that  copious  and  e:itraordinary 
clfusion  [effusion,  i.  e.  pouring  out]  of  the  lioly  Spirit  which  was 


OF  BJPT^.    :.  "■ 

received  by  the  Apv0stle<5  and  ^rst  diRciplcs  of  or.r  Lord  soon  i;A;i  ajs 
a:^censi'3n 'into  lieaAcn."  The  truth  is,  the  term  "baptize,"  whej* 
applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  us-d  lo  denote  both  his  extraordina  rv 
and  ordinary  influences,  even  those  by  vrhicli  the  mind  is  renewed  r>iu 
united  to  Christ :  luid  so  baptism  by  aiTuslon  is  tlie  most  expressi^vc' 
emblem  or  the  commimication  of  these  influences,  more  especially  las 
the  mode  of  application  is  expressed  in  the  same  way,  and  the  one  is. 
fairly  an  emblem  of  the  other. 

But  Mr.  B.  does  not  seem  willing  to  admit  that  one  baptism  is  tfli 
emblem  of  the  other  : — I  say,  "  seem  willing,"  for  I  protest  I  do  nc^ 
know,  thoui^h  I  have  his  book  before  my  eyes,  and  have  looked  at  il 
liaif  an  hour,  whether  he  means  to  admit  or  deny  it.  That  which 
seems  the  most  evident  is,  he  wislies,  by  any  means,  to  get  rid  of  it, 
lose  it,  put  it  out  of  sight,  forget  it  himself,  and  make  his  reader  do 
so  too  ;  butihen  how  is  this  to  be  done  ?  Done  i  why,  by  the  assist- 
ance of  his  old  impartial  friends  the  Quakers.  He  suggests  that  cur 
vievving  v/.v»er  baptism  as  an  emblem  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  will  operate  against  its  pevpetui\:y.  To  evince  this  he  intra- 
duces  the  Quakers  as  reasoning  in  the  following  manner  :  "  Water 
baptism  vras  divinely  appointed,  eaid  continued  in  force  till  the  death 
of  Christ  ;  but  as  that  rite  had  for  its  object  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  his  divine  infiuences,  no  sooner  was  the  promised  Spint 
vouchsafed  to  our  Lord's  disciples,  than  the  obligation  to  regard  wa- 
ter baptism  entirely  ceased.  For  baptism  in  water  being  only  an  em- 
blem of  the  promised  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  wliy  should  the  for- 
mer be  continued  after  the  latter  has  taken  place  i"  This,  he  says* 
or  something  like  it,  if  he  mistake  not,  is  the  Quakers'  principal  ar- 
gument ;  and,  for  aught  he  perceives,  it  is  equ^iily  forcible  v/ith  that 
of  his  opponent. 

I  confess  I  am  not  suaiciently  versed  in  tlie  Quakers'  mode  of  re:^- 
soning  to  know  v/hether  Mr.  B.  has  done  them  justice.  He  lirst 
makes  them  say  that  baptism  continued  till  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
then  tllat  the  obligation  to  regard  it  ceased  v,  heii  the  promised  Spirit 
was  vouchsafed  :  So  tnere  are  two  periods  for  the  expiration  of  bap- 
tism. But  I  have  no  dispute  vvith  tlie  C^iakers  ;  I  know  they  are 
only  brought  in  here  as  a  blind,  that  Mr.  B.  by  getting  behind  them, 
might  withdraw  more  easily.  I  am  persuaded  he  does  not  aj)prove  of 
their  argument— he  only  wanted  to  get  rid  of  the  allusion,  and  he  has 
got  rid  of  it  ;  but  it  is  in  the  same  way  as  the  Quakei-s  get  rid  of  the 
two  ordinances  :  Nay,  far  worse  ;  for  vvhereas  they  do  this  by  argu- 
ments which  they  deem  good,  but  Mr.  B.  has  done  it  by  sucli  reason- 
ing as  he  himself  would  be  ashamed  to  adopt.  Tiiis  is  Mr.  B's. 
miserable  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  allusion,  viz.  by  giving  the  readei* 
a  Quaker's  argument.  I  will  nov/  adveit  to  his  other  shift,  by 
v.hich, 

2.  He  attempts  to  m^ike  the  allusion  agree  v^ith  immersion.  The 
mode,  as  I  have  before  said,  of  communicating  the  inJluence  of  tiie 
Holy  Spirit  is  in  Scripture  expressed  by  coming  upon — Liiling  upon 
— shedding  forth — pouring  out,  and  this  mode  of  communication  is 
expressly  called  baptizin-^.  Now  whilst  most  persons  have  considered 
il:e  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  favouriir^  atfusionj  Mr.  B.  Vtiii  wsx- 


5Ct 


OF  THE  MODS 


'  dertake  to  show  that  it  is  expressive  of  that  idea  for  wliich  he  contendi^j 
-  amely,  immersion.  This  is  an  attempt  in  which  I  could  wish  him 
p-  ich  success  ;  for  if  he  can  make  it  appear  that  pouring  out,  and 
i^^\  nersing  into,  are  the  same  thing,  then  neither  v/ili  he  have  any 
i*^  .son  to  complain  of  those  that  pour,  nor  will  those  who  pour  have 
'^^■^  /  reason  to  complain  of  him.  I  fear  it  will  prove  a  hard  task  j  let 
^is  hear  him  however. 

In  vol.  i.  p.  101,  he  speaks  of  "  an  electrical  bath  so  called  be- 
cause the  electrical  fluid  surrounds  the  patient."  Well,  and  what 
then  ?  "  This  philosophical  document  reminds  me  of  the  sacred  his- 
torian's language,  Vv^here,  narrating  the  fact  under  consideration,  thus 
he  speaks  :  '  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  v\^ith  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a 
sound  from  Heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all 
THE  HOUSE  WHERE  THEY  WERE  SITTING.  And  there  appeared 
unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  asof  hre,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them. 
And  they  were  all  hlled  v.ith  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Now,  says  he,  if  the 
language  of  medical  electricity  be  just,  it  cannot  be  absurd,  nay,  it 
seems  highly  rational,  to  understand  this  language  of  inspiration  as 
expressive  of  that  idea  [immersion]  for  vrhich  we  contend.  Was  the 
Holy  Spirit  poured  out  ?  Did  the  Holy  Spirit  fall  upon  the  Apostles 
and  others  at  that  memorable  time  ?  It  was  in  such  a  manner  and  to 
such  a  degree,  that  they  were,  like  a  patient  in  the  electric  bath,  as  if 
immersed  in  it." 

This  electric  bath  is  a  pretty  fancy,  a  happy  invention  for  Mr.  B.  ; 
it  is  well  he  did  not  live  before  it  was  found  out,  for  then  what  a  fine 
thought  would  have  been  lost.     Though  the  Holy  Spirit  fell  upon, 
was  poured  out,  yet,  says  he,  it  was  in  such  a  manner  and  to  such  a 
degree,  that  they  were  like  a  patient  in  the  electric  bath,  as  if  immers- 
ed in  it,  that  is,  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit.     Most  persons,  I  sup- 
pose, when  they  read  of  the  Holy  Spirit  failing  upon  any  one,  under- 
stand it  to  mean  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  coming  upon  the  soul  ; 
but  Mr.  B.  speaks  as  if  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  his  influence,  fell  on  the 
outside  of  the  Apostles,  and  so  surrounded  their  bodies  like  an  electric 
bath.     And  to  shov/  he  intended  this,  he  has  put  these  words  in  large 
capitals,  "  it  filled    all  the  house  where    they  were    sit- 
ting."     Then  they  were  immersed  in  something  which  filled  the 
house  ;  I  ask,  what  was  that  something  ?  In  English  it  is  expressed 
by  the  pronoun  "  it"— it  filled  the  house  ;  the  Greek  has  no  pronoun. 
Vv^ell,  what  is  the  antecedent  to  ''  it"  ?  I  answer,  the  v/ord  "  sound." 
The  sound,  which  was  as  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  wtire  sitting.     The  Avordin  the  Greek  is  eechos,  an  echo,  a 
reverberating  sound.     Mv.  B's.  electric  bath  was,  after  all,  nothing 
more  than  an  echo.     He  has  been  very  silent  about  this  electric  fluid  ; 
either  he  did  not  knov/  what  it  was,  or  he  was  not  complaisant  enough 
to  tell  us.  The  loss,  however,  is  not  great  ;  we  have  found  it  out  without 
him.     It  was  an  echo  then  that  filled  all  the  house  ;  and  the  Apos- 
tles, being  immersed  in  sound,  were  surrounded  by  the  echo  like  a 
patient  in  an  electric  ]>ath.     This  is  the  beauty  of  sticking  close  to 
the  primary  mcianingof  theterm,  as  Mr.  B.  calls  it;  and  so  tenacious 
is  he  of  his  primary  meaning,  that  he  does  not  care  in  what  people 
are  imme;rsed,  so  they  are  but  immersed  in  something. 


OF  BJPTTSJk,  9? 

To  bfe  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  receive  his  infiuerxce  on  the 
iieart  and  mind  ;  but  this  baptism,  according-  to  Mr.  B.  is  to  have  tl\e 
body  surrounded  by  an  eclio;  Is  then  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  fall- 
ing upon  the  heart,  and  a  reverberating  sound  surrounding^  the  body, 
the  same  thing-  ?  Mr.  B.  is  a  dreadlV.!  ccnfounder  of  things  that  differ  ! 
He  said  once  that  an  obedient  subject  of  the  civil  government  and  a 
complete  church  member  were  the  same  thing  ;  doss  he  think  too  that 
the  im'luence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  nothing  more  than  an  echo  I — So 
mucli  for  the  electric  bath  and  the  Quaker's  argument  I  These  are  Mr. 
B's.t'.vo  miserable  shifts,  by  which  he  v/ould  evade  the  argument  from 
the  Holy  Spirit's  baptism  in  liivoiir  of  axTusion  ;  and  miserable  ones 
they  are  as  ever  made  their  appearance  in  public. 

I  shall  now  close  v.  hat  I  mean  to  say  on  the  mode,  by  collecting  the 
particulars  and  placing  them  in  one  view.  The  v/ord  dafifizo,  used  for 
this  ordinemce,  means  v/aohing  only,  but  not  any  mode  of  washing  :  It 
means  neither  dipping,  pouring,  nor  sprinkling  ;  for  these  are  only  dif- 
ferent ways  of  washing,  2.  i'.  baptizing*  TheV)  therefore,  who  say  that 
the  word  rantism  [sprinkling]  is  not  the  same  as  baptisni,  say  nothing 
but  what  is  very  right;  for  rantize  differs  from  baptize,  as  the  man- 
ner of  doing  diifers  from  the  thing  done  :  And  the  same  is  true  of 
immersion  and  pouring.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  it  must  be  observed 
that  the  v,'ord  baptism  is  iJsed  in  Scripture  where  pouring  and  sprink- 
Ttng  are  evidently  intended;  while  it  cannot  be  proved  that  it  is  ever 
ii«ied  either  in  the  Nevv^  Testament  or  in  the  Septuagint  where  immer- 
sion took  place.  The  New  Testament  I  have  examined;  I  will  here 
just  notice  the  two  places  vdiere  it  occurs  in  the  "Septuagint.  2  Kings, 
V.  14, /:g2  katcbee  A^ainian  kai  cbaji'iaato  en  to  Jorc^rt'Wff— And  Naaman 
went  down  and  baptized  in  Jordan.  The  English  has  it  "  dipped," 
and  this  is  the  only  place  where  baptize  is  translated  "dip ;"  but 
whether  there  was  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  or  any  part  of  it, 
is  altogether  uncertain.  All  we  can  be  certain  of  is,  that  the  proph- 
et ordered  him  to  wash,  his  servant  advised  him  to  wash,  and  he  went 
down,  and  ebafitisato  kata  to  reema  Elisaic^  baptized  according  to  the 
word  of  EHsha.  Nov;  there  are  two  reasons  which  induce  some  to 
think  he  applied  water  to  one  part  of  his  body  only  :  1 .  As  he  ex- 
pected the  prophet  to  strike  his  hand  over  the  place,  and  recover  the 
leper,  they  conclude  he  was  leprous  only  in  one  part  of  his  body,  and 
that  the  water  was  applied  to  that  part.  2.  The  command  to  wash 
seven  times,  they  consider  as  refL^rring  to  that  part  of  the  la^v  of 
cleansing  in  which  the  leper  is  ordered  to  be  sprinkled  ;  but,  for  my 
own  part,  I  think  it  impossible  to  say  in  what  manner  he  baptized. 
The  other  is  merely  figurative,  expressive  of  a  sense  of  God's  anger, 
and  occurs  in  Isaiah  xxi.  4,  kai  ee  anomia  mc  baptizd — And  sin  bap- 
tizes me  ;  meaning  the  punishment  due  to  sin,  which  is  expressed  by 
povaing  out  anger,  fury.  See.  on  a  person.  I'rom  these  premises  tlie 
unforced  conclusion  is  this  :  That,  on  tlie  one  hand,  as  the  word  bap- 
tize is  expressive  of  no  particular  mode,  nothing  can  be  concluded 
from  it  in  favor  of  one  m.ore  than  another ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  as 
the  word  has  certainly  been  used  for  pouring  and  sprinkling,  while 
there  is  no  proof  of  its  ever  being  used  in  Scripture  for  immersion,  it 
<^oes  niore  naturally  ascociate  it'^eif  with  affusion  and  aspersion.  With 

N 


98  OF  THE  USE  OF 

l-egard  to  tlve  circumstances  of  baptism,  they  afTord  no  certain  proof 
on  cilhcr  side.  Vvc  can  do  no  more  than  presume,  and  this  may  ht 
done  on  both  sides  :  There  is  presumption  for  and  against,  and  fancy, 
as  it  may  happen  to  favor  any  one  side,  will  form  the  conclusion  ;  but 
as  the  circumstances  carry  us  no  farther  than  presumption,  no  certain 
conchision  can  be  formed  cither  for  immersion  or  against  it.  The  al- 
lusions, I  observed,  were  of  two  kinds  ;  the  one  I  have  called  the 
Baptist  allusion,  the  other  the  Pa:dobaptist  allusion.  The  Baptist  al- 
lusion is  entirely  founded  in  mistake,  and  that  through  a  non-attention 
to  the  design  and  scope  of  the  Apostle  ;  for  in  the  same  v/ay  as  the 
Baptists  make  an  alhision  to  immersion,  the  context  will  furnish  al-^ 
lusions  to.  other  modes  :  and  disputants,  v/ere  they  so  inclined,  might 
plead  with  more  advantage  for  the  sign  of  the  cross,  kc.  than  the 
Baptists  can  for  immersion.  The  Pzcdobaptists,  allusion  consists  'v\ 
this  :  They  consider  the  two  baptisms,  the  material  a^id  the  spiritual, 
f.s  being  the  one  a  sliadow  or  figure  of  the  other,  and  the  mode  of  the 
material  as  reseuibling  tliut  of  the  spiritual.  And,  therefore,  as  di- 
vine influence  in  spiritual  baptism  is  said  to  come  upon — fall  upon — to 
be  shed  forth — ^jDoured  out,  and  as  material  baptism  is  to  be  a  signifi- 
cant emblem  of  tliis,  tlie  allusion  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  pouring  and 
sprinkling.  And  that  this  is  the  true  state  of  the  matter  appears  by 
this  :  That  the  Scriptures  commonly  join  material  and  spiritual  bap- 
tism together  as  counterparts  of  each  other,  and  express  them  by  the 
same  word,  ai;d  describe  them,  as  to  their  mode,  in  the  same  way. 
The  consequence  then  is,  that  as  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  pouring, 
sheddin?:-  S^ic.  aud  as  the  baptism  of  water  is  to  represent  that,  and 
is  described,  as  to  its  mode,  in  the  same  way,  that  mcK.le  must  of  ne* 
cessity  be  pourin<^  or  sprlnkiing. 


OF  THE  USE  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM! 

As  I  have  often  heard  it  asked,  What  is  the  use  of  infant  bap- 
tism ?  I  think  it  necessary,  before  I  conclude,  to  say  something  in  an- 
swer to  that  question.  With  regard  to  the  use  of  baptism,  I  consider 
it  in  the  light  of  a  mean  of  grace,  and  I  view  it  in  the  same  way 
when  applied  to  infants.  I  do  not  suppose  that  infants,  properly 
speaking,  receive  arty  present  benefit  by  being  baptized,  but  that  this 
is  designed  the  more  to  engage  the  attention  of  parents  and  others  to 
the  rising  generation.  I  vieAV  infants,  when  baptized,  under  the  notion 
of  persons  entered  into  a  school  ;  and  therefore,  I  consider  parents, 
pastors,  deacons,  and  church-members,  at  large,  as  brought  under  an 
additional  obligation  to  instruct  those  children  who  are  become  schol- 
ars, as  they  become  able  to  learn,  in  the  peculiar  truths  of  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ.  Viewing  the  matter  in  this  light,  it  assumes  an  im- 
portance exceedingly  grand  ;  and  infant  baptism  is  fitr  from  being 
that  unmeaning  thing,  which  it  appears  to  be,  when  the  views  arc 
extended  no  farther  than  helpless  infancy. 


LYFAJ^  T  BAP  TISM.  9  Q 

We  may  illustrate  this  by  tuklniJja  view  of  circumcision.  Circum- 
rision  brought  persons  under  an  oljlii^-ation  of  conforming-  to  the  re- 
vealed -svili  of  God  ;  he  who  was  circumcised  became  a  debtor  :  And 
as  this  Avas  the  natiu'e  of  the  institute,  the  oblii^ation  devolved  on  all 
who  received  it.  But  forasmucli  as  persons  cannot  actually  conform 
before  they  are  brought  to  understand,  and,  in  order  that  they  may 
4mderstand,  they  must  be  taught,  we  are,  therefore,  to  consider  cir- 
cumcised infants  as  standini:;  in  the  place  of  scholars  or  disciples 
to  be  instructed  in  that  system  to  which  they  were  boimd  to  conform. 
If  then  circumcision  brought  an  obligation  on  some  to  leani,  it  must, 
at  the  same  time,  bring  an  obligation  on  others  to  teach  ;  because  u- 
sually  persons  do  not  learn  without  being  taught  :  and  hence  parents, 
priests,  and  people,  came  under  their  respective  degrees  of  obligation 
to  see  the  rising  generation  instructed  in  th.at  religion  into  \\\\\q\\  they 
were  initiated  as  scholars  or  disciples.  When  I  consider  this  divine  in- 
stitute as  calculated  to  fix  the  attention  of  the  people  on  their  risinj^ 
r.fl^spring,  with  respect  to  their  instruction  in  the  things  of  God,  I 
tannot  sufnciently  admire  that  poor  heathenish  notion  of  circumciiiion 
which  Mr.  Booth  has  somewhere  picked  up,  or  rather  invented  him- 
self, than  wliich,  I  am  persuaded,  the  most  ignomnt  Jew  never  enter- 
tained a  meaner. 

It  is  for  want  of  viewing  the  matter  in  this  way,  that  an  institute, 
administered  to  an  infant,  appears  ridiculous  to  any.  When  the  at- 
tention is  fixed  on  the  infant  only,  whether  it  be  a  circumxised  or  a 
baptized  infant,  without  considering  any  thing  further,  v/e  may  well 
say,  as  the  Baptists  do.  What  can  an  infant  know  ?  'What  can  an  infant 
do  ?  What  use  can  it  be  to  an  infant  ?  In  such  a  case,  it  is  very  true, 
it  would  be  a  dlfiicult  thing  to  discern  any  wisdom  in  the  administra- 
tion of  an  institute  of  any  kind  to  an  infant.  And  I  remember  once 
conversing  with  a  Baptist  upon  infant  baptism,  who,  among  other 
things,  observed  what  a  silly  thing  it  v/as  to  baptize  an  infant.  As  I 
perceived  his  views  extended  no  farther  than  helpless  intancy,  I  asked 
him,  whether,  if  he  had  seen  it  done,  he  would  not  have  thought  it 
a  very  silly  thing  to  circumcise  an  infant  ?  "  That  I  should  indeed," 
said  he,  *'  indeed  I  should  ;"  these,  as  well  as  I  can  recollect,  v,  ere 
his  very  words.  But  when,  on  the  contrary,  our  views  take  in  the 
grand  design  of  engaging  the  attention  the  more  fixedly  to  the  rising 
i-ace,  all  the  supposed  silliness  vanishes  away,  and  it  appears  a  plan  wor- 
thy the  wisdom  and  kindness  of  God. 

I  was  led  more  particularly  to  vicAV  the  matter  in  this  point  of  light, 
by  considering  that  commission  given  to  the  Apostles  ijy  the  risen 
Saviour  respecting  the  Gentile  nations.  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19,  20, 
*' All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earih.  Go  ye  there- 
fore, and,  matheetcumtr^  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  didas- 
kontes,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded yuu,"  8cc.  Here  we  have  the  whole  plan  just  as  I  have  set 
it  down  in  the  case  of  circumcision  :  They  are  sent  to.  make  disciples 
[scholars  ;]  for  diacifiulus  in  Latin,  and  scholar  in  English,  are  just 
tl;e  same  ;  they  are  to  enter  such  as  are  made  scholars  by  baptism  ; 
they  arc  to  instruct  these  scholars  in  the  things  of  Ghrist,  in  order 


IQQ  OF  THE  USE  OF 

that  they  may  observe  them.  Our  blessed  Lord,  by  making  use  of 
the  words  mathecteusate^  make  disciples,  and  dida-'.kontes^  teaching',  car-> 
ries  our  views  immediately  to  mathcctai^  disci/iuli,  scholars,  and  dkdafjka-* 
loi^  firdsceptGrea^  schcoim?.sters  ;  and  thus  we  are  presented  with  a 
Christian  school  with  scliolars  and  masters. 

According  to  this  viev/  of  the  subject,  and  to  this  our  Lord's  vrords 
naturally  lead  us,  there  appears  not  only  a  grandeur  of  design,  but 
likewise  an  exact  symmetry  in  the  difTerent  dispensations  of  God — 
I  mean  that  attention  to  the  rising  offspring,  which  had  shown  itself 
in  a  former  dispensation,  and,  no  doubt,  in  all.  It  is  to  be  observed 
that  our  Lord  uses  a  term,  a  school  term,  v.diich  will  agree  to  an  in- 
fant as  well  as  an  adult  ;  for  the  word  rnathsdecsy  a  scholar,  of  which 
the  word  used  by  our  Lord  is  the  theme,  does  not  necessarily  intend 
previous  lecirning  nor  present  learning,  bvit  only  learning  in  design. 
We  call  those  scholars  who  have  done  learning,  and  so  we  do  those 
who  are  now  at  their  studies,  and  so  likewise  those  v.dio  have  not  yet 
begun  to  learn,  provided  they  a.re  entered  for  that  purpose  ;  so  that 
the  idea  of  learning  does  not  necessarily  annex  itself  to  the  term  ma" 
theeiees^  scholar,  any  farther  than  to  denote  a  person  who  is  entered. 
into  a  school  with  a  view  to  learn. 

But  here  it  may  be  asked,  What  propriety  can  there  be  in  callinr^ 
a  person  a  disciple  or  scholar  v/ho  is  yet  incapable  of  learning  ?  I  re- 
ply, he  is  properly  so  called,  because  he  is  entered  wiih  that  design. 
e.g.  Numbers,  iii.  28.  "  In  the  number  of  ail  the  males,  frcm  a 
month  old  and  upwards,  were  eight  thousand  and  six  hundred,  keepincy 
the  chare;e  of  the  sanctury."  Can  any  body  tell  me  how  a  child  of  six 
weeks  old  could  be  a  keeper  of  the  chai"ge  of  the  sanctuary  ?  Ccr-f 
tainly  he  could  no  otherwise  be  called  a  keeper  but  as  one  designed 
and  appointed  to  that  service.  Just  with  the  same  propriety  an  in- 
fant, who,  by  circumcision  oj-  baptism,  was  or  is  publicly  entered  into 
a  religious  school,  may  be  called  a  disciple  in  a  religious  sense.  And 
it  is  a  very  general  opinion  tliat  infants  are  actually  so  called  in  Acts^ 
XV.  10.  "  Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of  the  dis- 
ciples i"  That  infants  are  called  disciples  will  appear  plain  if  we  ask. 
On  whose  neck  was  this  yoke  to  have  come  ?  Every  one  knows,  who 
knows  the  m.anner  of  Moses  respecting  circumcision,  that  it  would 
have  come  on  adults,  but  chiefiy  on  infants  :  and  then  it  is  evident 
that  as  part  of  those,  on  whom  the  yoke  would  have  ccAiie,  were  in- 
fants, it  is  as  evident  that  those  infants  v;ere  called  disciples  :  But 
■whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  word  made  use  of  by  our  Lord  will 
a<>-ree  to  infants  as  well  as  adults. 

The  Apostles  are  to  make  disciples — that  is  all  moJhecteitsate  im- 
ports. But  still  the  question  is,  how  are  tliey  to  make  theur  ?  I  answer, 
by  teaching  ;  for  neither  adult  nor  infant  can  be  made  a  disciple  v,  ith- 
out.  And  herein  the  Baptists  are  very  right,  and  I  agree  with  them, 
that  adults  and  infants  must  be  made  disciples  by  teaching,  or  they 
will  not  be  made  so  at  all.  But  then  how  can  an  infant  be  made  a  dis- 
ciple by  teaching  ?  I  reply,  not  directly  but  indirectly  ;  that  is,  the  pa- 
rents, being  won  over  by  teaching  to  embrace  the  truth,  they  present 
their  infants  to  the  Christian  school  to  be  trained  up  in  the  same 
truth  ;  and  thus  they  become  disciples,     f .  ^.  Joel  is  to  staictify  i* 


LyFJXT  BAPTISM.  101 

fast,  andccill  a  solemn  assembly,  to  slather  the  people,  elders,  children, 
and  those  that  suck  the  breasts.  But  how  is  he  to  assemble  tiieni  ? 
He  is  to  blow  a  trumpet  in  Zioii.  But  what  docs  a  suckini^  child 
know  about  the  sound  of  a  trumpet  ?  I  answer,  he  knows  nothing 
at  all  about  it.  How  then  are  sucking*-  children  to  be  broui^ht  to- 
gether by  the  souiid  of  a  trumpet,  seehig  they  know  notliint>-  of  the 
trumpet  or  its  sound  ?  1  reply,  In  the  same  way  as  infants  arc  made 
disciples  by  teaching.  But  how  is  tliat  ?  Every  one  knows  how  it 
is  who  knows  any  tiling  ;  and  this  I  have  already  explained.  If  the 
trumpet  had  not  been  sounded,  the  sucklings  would  not  have  beeij 
collected,  and  if  tlie  men  were  not  taught,  infants  would  not  becom.c 
disciples  :  So  then  infants  as  v/ell  as  men  Lire  made  disciples  by  teaci^* 
ing,  as  elders  and  sucking  cliildren  are  brought  to  the  fiist  by  the  sound 
of  a  trumpet. 

Viewing  baptism  as  introducing  infants  into  a  visible  state  of  dis- 
cipleshjp,  we  are  to  consider  others  as  teachers  and  overlookers  of 
these  disciples  :  And  then  the  usefulness  of  such  an  institute  will  dis- 
play itself  before  us.  AVe  see  an  infant  baptized.— If  cur  vievrs  ter* 
rainate  there,  alas,  what  is  it  ?  Infant  sprinkling  only,  the  baptism  of 
a  baby.  Things  v;,diich  are  little  in  themselves,  become  great  by  their 
connexion  with,  and  relation  to  others.  We  see  an  infaiU  baptized. 
What  does  it  import  ?  He  is  received  into  discipleship,  i.  e.  to  be  a 
scholar  in  a  Christian  school.  Now  carry  your  views  into  the  depart- 
ment of  parents,  pastors,  deacons,  and  members  ;  and  listen  to  the 
silent  language  of  this  institution.  "  Parents,  pastors,  and  people, 
pray  fcr  us  ;  during  our  tender  infancy,  pray  for  us.  And  when 
matured  by  age,  cause  the  doctrine  which  you  profess,  to  drop  upon 
lis  as  the  rain,  to  distil  as  dew,  as  the  small  rain  upon  the  tender  herb, 
and  as  showers  upon  the  grass.  Watch  over  us  with  united  care,  and 
bring  us  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  It  is  a 
dispensation  grand  and  merciful,  v/hich  is  calculated  more  povrerfully 
to  turn  the  attention  of  men,  to  the  concerns  of  those  who  are  rising 
into  life,  and  posting  into  eternity. 

There  is  one  fault  among  others  in  the  Baptist  system,  that  it  places 
.the  rishig  generation  so  entirely  out  of  sight.  I  do  not  mean,  that 
the  Baptists  themselves  do  this,  for  their  conduct  in  this  respect  is 
:nuch  better  than  their  system  ;  but  their  system  places  them  out  of 
fcigfit.  And  in  this,  it  differs  from  ail  the  dispensations  of  God,  of 
V,  liich  v/e  have  any  particular  knowledge  ;  which  alone  v/ould  lead  to 
a  presumption,  that  it  is  not  of  God. 

To  what  I  have  said  concerning  the  use  of  infant  baptism,  under 
the  idea  of  an  institution  suited  to  draw  tlie  attention  more  powerfully 
to  the  immortal  concerns  of  the  rising  generation  (and  he  must  be 
very  inattentive  to  human  nature,  who  does  not  see  a  beauty  and 
blessedrjess  in  such  a  contrivance  ;)  there  is  no  cbjecticn  that  can  be 
brought  by  a  Baptist,  but  may  be  retorted.  He  may  say.  Cannot 
all  this  be  done  without  baptizing  infants  ?  Retort  :  Cannot  men  be 
built  up  in  faith  and  love,  without  either  baptism  or  the  Lord's  sup- 
per ? — Are  not  many  baptized  infai"it3  as  destitute  cf  real  religion  as 
others  ?  Ret. — And  are  not  many  baptized  adults,  as  destitute  of 
religion  a^  beathen.-5  I — Axe  not  many  unbaptizcd  infants  brought  up 


103  OF  THE  USE  OF,  b*f. 

in  Chvistian  !:no-vvlcd^i;e  equally  as  'vvcll  as  the  bi^ptizecl  ones  ?  Het.-~9 
And  are  not  many,  wi:o  have  not  been  baptized  in  adult  age,  as  gra- 
cious and  holy  as  those  who  have  ?  In  this  way  every  objection  wliich 
can  be  brou;^ht  may  easily  be  retorted  on  the  bringcr. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  the  enjoymeiit  of  ordinances  is  to  be  con^ 
sidered  only  as  a  mean  of  grace  ;  they  are  well  suited  as  ordinances  to 
impress  the  mind  ;  but  then,  it  is  very  certain,  they  effect  nothing, 
unless  God  is  pleased  to  give  tne. increase.  The  possession  of  the 
word  of  God,  the  enjoyment  of  preacliii^g,  baptism,  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, are  good  things  in  themselves,  though  many  are  never  the  better 
for  them  ;  but  we  are  to  estimate  tnese  things  not  by  the  advantage 
which  some  receive,  but  by  their  own  suitableness  to  promote,  as 
means,  some  great  ends. 

When  we  consider  infants  under  the  notion  of  disciples,  or  scholars, 
the  idea  suggests  to  us  a  noble  kind  of  discipline  in  the  church  of  God. 
It  suggests,  that  all  those  infants  v»^ho  are  baptized,  should  be  formed, 
g.s  they  become  capable,  into  societies,  for  the  purpose  of  Christian 
instruction  ;  And  so  every  church  should  have  its  school.  That  there 
should  be  in  churches,  not  only  fioimertai.,  pastors,  but  didufikaloi^  school- 
fnasters,  Eph.  iv.  11.  That  the  minister,  and  other  fit  persons, 
should  preside  over  these  little  disciples  ;  and  parei  ts  who  bring  their 
children  to  baptism,  should  consider  themselves  as  bound  in  conscience 
to  see  them  forth -coming  to  this  society  at  all  appointed  seasons. 
That  all  the  members  should  watch  over  them,  v.'ith  respect  to  their 
morals,  and  likevdse  their  Christian  learning.  In  short,  the  whole 
should  be  a  churcli  business,  regulated  in  the  manner  of  doing  accord- 
ing to  the  wisdom  of  each  Cliristian  society.  For  as  the  infant  is  re- 
reived  by  the  church  as  a  disciple  in  its  baptism,  the  church  becomes 
bound  to  regard  that  infant  as  such  ;  and  to  see  that  it  is  treated  as  a 
scholar  of  Christ.  To  all  this,  it  is  plain,  the  idea  of  discipleship 
leads  ;  and  in  this  view  it  becomes  greatly  important,  as  its  tendency 
IS  to  draw  the  cares  and  prayers  of  the  whole  Christian  chuich  towards 
the  rising  generation. 

There  are  many  special  uses  connected  with  this  grand  leading  idea, 
which  the  limit  of  this  essay  will  not  permit  nie  to  mention.  I  can- 
liot  say  how  far  the  leading  idea  itself  is  attended  to  by  those  who 
iido])t  infant  baptism  ;  if  it  be  not,  it  is  so  much  the  more  to  be  la- 
mented, that  in  this  as  well  as  in  other  things  the  spirit  of  an  institute 
is  not  followed  up  to  its  proper  scope.  It  is  sufficient  notwithstand- 
ing to  my  present  purpose,  in  showing  the  usefulness  of  an  ordinance, 
if  there  be  a  natural  fitness,  in  the  ordinance  itself,  to  promote  the 
great  end  I  have  mentioned.  And  as  every  system  Vv  e  embrace  is 
likely  to  impress  our  minds  according  to  its  nature  ;  that  system  must 
he  eminently  good  and  useful,  which  is  calculated  most  of  all,  to 
bring  the  rising  generation,  and  their  everlasting  concerns,  to  our 
mind  ;  to  hold  them  up  perpetually  before  our  eyes  ;  and  to  fix  them 
habitually  upon  our  hearts. — All  this  the  admission  of  infants  by  bap- 
tism to  a  state  of  discipleship  in  tlie  church  of  God,  is  evidently  cal- 
culated to  do  ;  2.nd  herein  I  judge  its  main  usefulness  consists. 


Rffoccliois  and    Recommendations  of  the  ahove  Work,   hy  the 
Englijh  Reviewers  of  Keligioiis  Fublications. 

It  is  perhaps  inipnssihle  to  review-  a  book  of  a  controversial  nature,  vithout 
giv'if.g  OjTeace  to  oae  siue  or  other  of  the  question  ;  even  though  the  greare^t  care 
jYiay  be  lakt-a  to  oirend  neither  :  And  besides,  it  is  more  than  probable,  that  an 
honest  yevk^ver  may  have  an  opinion  of  his  own  on  the  subject.  However, 
keeping  that  out  of  sight,  as  far  as  possible,  we  shall  endeavour  to  give  a  just 
i-epresti\tai:ion^of  the  reasons  here  assigned  for  renouncing  the  T>rinc]ples  of  Antr- 
pxdobap.isin.  The  writer  seenns  to  be  thvorcughly  accjuainttd  with  the  natur<^ 
and  extent  of  his  subject,  and  to  have  a  clear  view  of  all  the  consequences  tliar 
ina-v  arise  from  the  various  arguments  urged  either  for  or  against  infant  baiJtism  : 
and  has  certainly  given  a  new  turn  to  the  controversy,  wliile  he  has  brought  for- 

}  ward  some  now,  and  much  iiT).por"ant  matter,  in  such  a  form,  as  undoubted]/ 
t-alls  for  fhe  vei^'  Fcrious  attention  of  those  gen'lei^ien  vv-ho  oppose  infant  baptisirj. 
He  wrives  with  great  perspicuity,  and  reasons  with  nuich  furce,  ahd  with  r.o  little 
effect.  He  fairly  statv^s  th -ise  interesting  points,  which  are  erually  admitted  on 
both  sides. — Such  as  these  ;  that  the  baptism  of  believing  adults  is  right  and 
projier — that  every  individual,  -vho  believes,  may  and  aught  to  be  baptized — 
that  infants  are  not  capable  of  believing.  The  question  then  is  not  concerninr; 
the  bapcism  of  adults,  nor  the  baptism  of  Ulierers,  nor  yet  whether  infants  are 
tapable  ( J  faith  ;  for  in  thcje  markers  all  are  agreed  ;  1^:  the  q;>estion  is  selelv 
this,  Are  vfants  to  be  baptized,  or  :.ot  ?  That  our  common  readers,  for  who.se 
benefit  we  chieHy  write,  may  understand  this  statement  of  the  sui^ject,  and  our 
author's  7iiode  of  reasoning,  we  shall  set  before  them  the  following  specimen. 
The  Eaptibts  say,  The  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism, 
^Ir.  Edv.-ards  says,  Granted  freely.   The  Baptists  alurm.  That  infants  have  \\o  faitlx 

I  or  repentance.     Mr.  Edwards  answers.  Granted  freely.     The  Baptists  then,  urge, 

I  That  infan'-s,  therefore,  are  not  proper  subjects  of  bapti-im.  Mr.  Edv.ards  denies 
this  assertion  and  rejects  it,  because  no  one  ever  urged  ba])rism  on  the  faitli  of  in- 
fantry, and  because  the  faith  of  infants  enters  not  at  all  into  the  question  :  And^ 
were  it  necessary,  Mr.  Edvv  ards  would  further  illustruie  the  subject  in  the  follow- 
ing manner  : — The  Baptists  attack  the  Jews,  and  say,  The  Sci-ipturcs  required  faith 
m  order  to  c'rcumcision.  The  Jt.v  answers.  Granted  freely.  I'hcn  the  Eaptii'a 
say,  Buc  male  infants  of  eight  days  eld  had  not  faith.  The  Jew  an5:,wers  ag^in, 
Granted  freely.  The  Baptists  then  go  on,  and  say,  Male  infants  of  eight  days 
old,  therefore,  were  not  proper  subjects  of  circumcision.  The  Jew  answers  wiih 
ardour,  and  justly  too  ;  I  deny  that  assertion,  because  rione  ever  rested  circunu;is- 
ion  on  tl?e  faith  of  an  infant  eight  days  old,  nor  does  the  faith  of  iufanto  at  all  cii- 
ter  into  tiie  question.     Here  then  it  evidently  appears,  that,  if  neither  circumcision 

,nor  baptism  was  ever  grounded  on  the  faith  uf  infants,  the  arguments  for  or  against 
the  right  of  infants  to  these  ordinances  must  be  drawn  from  sources  that  have 

-  Jio-.hing  to  do  with  their  faith. 

'I'he  que;,tion  therefore  is.  Are  infants  to  be  baptized  or  not  ?  The  Baptists  sa. . 
No  ;  and  then  assign  their  reasons  :  All  of  whicii  Mr.  Edw^ards  ruduces  to  two  : 
Fir,t,  That  a  person,  ivho  has  a  right  to  a  positi'je  institute,  must  be  expressly  ?^?e;?- 
tioied,  as  having  that  right  ,•  but  inj'unts  art  not  so  mentioned,  and  therefore  have  hi.i 
•  right.  This  argujuent  Mr.  Edwards  considers  as  a  mere  assumption  ; — as 
allowed  by  any  class  of  men, — nor  ov/ned  by  tlie  Baptists  then^selves,  as  of 
uay  real  force,  in  admitting  women  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here  some  things  arc 
introduced,  respecting  the  controversy  as  utanaged  by  Mr.  Booth,  which  Cci'tjiiUy 
require  an  explicit  answer. 

Tiieir  second  argu  r.'oa':  is, — That  the  Scriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  as  it- 
efiiisite  to  baptiftni  t  but  as  i'firts  cannot  have  tlese,  they  are  nut  proper  subjects  <f 
haptisni.  Tiia.;  fai'.li  and  repefc-a.^ce  are  i-equired,  in  order  to  baptism,  Mr.  Ed. 
■%vai-Js  itlows  J  but  "  I  ask,"  says  he,  "  of  whom  ?  The  answer  must  be— Of  atl  .!:> , 


t 


xa 


